The SVN devs have known from the beginning that the lack of merge tracking constitutes, to use their verbiage, a "headache". For 5 long years, SVN's "Best Practices" solution was to track merges manually in the commit log messages. This "Best Practice" could be best described as, to use the technical terminology, "really fucking error-prone."
Look, I like SVN, I use SVN, I hope they get merge tracking (and 'svn obliterate', as long as I'm creating my Christmas List) ASAP. My only point here is that the great-grandparent's claim, that "It's trivial to branch and merge in SVN", is a heaping, stinking load of crap, to use the technical term. You know it, I know it, CollabNet knows it, everybody knows it.
I'm guessing that even sqlrob (173498) knows it.
Re:git is pretty cool, take a closer look
on
Linus on GIT and SCM
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
subversion lacks multiple merge points.
Making a single branch and then a single merge is trivial in subversion. Doing anything more complicated is a nightmare.
Well, I'm not even sure how to respond here. The whole point of bringing up illegals posing as legals was to show that the tax treatment isn't what makes illegals attractive to hire. I didn't use that example to make your point easier to refute. I used that example because your argument is so easy to refute.
But since you can't make that mental jump, I'll refute your argument anyhow. So you have all of these illegals working under the table. What's to stop a citizen from doing the same thing? Some silly law? I'm not even sure that the US citizen would be breaking any laws by working under the table (don't have to file tax returns if you don't owe tax, and these grape pickers aren't making enough money to owe tax). Of course, the employer would be violating half a dozen laws, but the employer already has proved that he doesn't much care about those laws since he hires illegals.
And why wouldn't Americans be more competitive for those grape-picking under the table jobs? I mean, we live here. We don't have to make the dangerous border crossing to and from Mexico each year. In theory, we should be able to work for less than the illegal migrants. But yet illegal immigrants totally dominate in this type of employment. Any ideas why?
It can't be the payroll tax, because again, no payroll tax is due on under the table employment, whether the employee is authorized to work here or not. Again, I'm going to have to say that I totally don't buy your payroll tax argument.
The standard for freedom that you describe is called "Financial Independence". Indeed, very few people ever reach that point (passive income exceeds living expenses), even in retirement (most retirees must tap their nest egg's principal, not just live off of appreciation, dividends, and interest).
But can we even describe that as "true freedom", as you say? After all, a person with way more than $800k well-invested may still have responsibilities. To his wife, to his kids, to his family. To his employees, community, church.
Simply accumulating $800k doesn't buy you the ability to do whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want, and to whomever you want.
But then look at a bum on the street. He goes wherever he wants whenever he wants. He doesn't work, save asking passers-by for nickels, dimes, quarters each afternoon. He has no responsibilities to anybody, and has nothing to lose. That sounds an awful lot like freedom to me.
Of course, given the choice between being the bum on the street and having a high net worth, I would choose the high net worth, and he probably would as well. The funny thing is, though, that bum on the street probably has a strange, idealized view of what it's like to have more money than you need. My guess is that you suffer from that same perception-misalignment.
I guess a million bucks isn't what it used to be.:)
while Jewish law prohibits desecration of a dead body, that does not mean someone from a "mostly Jewish" town WOULDN'T be an organ donor. Maybe their parents were Jewish, and they're agnostic, for fuck's sake.
Actually, organ donation is permissible under the doctrine of Pikuach Nefesh. So even if she was Jewish, it is conceivable that she is also an organ donor.
In the Orthodox movement, the standard is that the donation must be to save a specific person's life. Conservative and Reform rabbis, however, do not universally accept this restriction. Many will interpret the requirement of Pikuach Nefesh to be so tantamount (after all, it supersedes all but three Jewish laws) that donation to an organ bank is indeed permissible, and in fact encouraged.
But I agree that he contention that anyone who is truly from Pikesville would not be an organ donor is ludicrous. I have a good friend who is from Pikesville, she is Jewish, and she is an organ donor.
It couldn't have been a DMCA "we own the copyright, now take it down" takedown notice, because those only apply to copyrightable works.
What probably happened was Digg got a letter saying, "You have posted a DRM circumvention tool. If you don't remove it, we will sue your testicles into the stratosphere."
It's different from a takedown notice, but it had the same effect.
The epitome of this has been how the MP3 music-sharing scene -- which was underground and not taken seriously by anyone except a few college kids back in the mid-1990s -- was marketed by lawyers, who waged a holy war against trading at the behest of the Recording Industry Association of America.
This war did nothing but popularize a system of sharing music files, and I can assure you that it went from fringe to mainstream only because of highly publicized legal actions against people who essentially were judgment-proof.
Let me get this straight, Dvorak.
Will you have me believe that the explosion of p2p mp3 sharing had nothing to do with a) the proliferation of broadband, and b) free music? That if the RIAA hadn't gone on a massive lawsuit campaign, no one would want free music?
If I could get the same results with a phone camera as I can get with a dedicated digital camera, I would happily ditch the dedicated digital camera.
I do not, as you suggest, use a large camera with large lenses because I have something to prove while taking pictures.
Neither do I consider myself to be part of an elite minority. An excellent entry-level dSLR that takes great pictures can be had for half the cost of this Nokia phone.
But with enough light, a small lens and sensor can take a good picture.
I would agree with this statement, but your statement differs significantly from the submitter's claim:
we could start to see a decline in dedicated digital cameras sales and an increase in camera phone sales.
That claim, of course, is total bunk.
As both a dSLR and a camera phone owner, do you really think that I lug around that big camera for my health? Do you really think that I have spent thousands of dollars on camera equipment because my wallet was too heavy and I needed something to lighten it up?
Seriously, if I could just use the camera on my phone (which I am carrying around anyway) to get the same results as I can get with my dSLR, there is no way in heck I'd bother with the dSLR.
So have I taken decent photos with my camera phone? Yes. Are we going to see a decline in dSLR sales and an increase in camera phone sales? Heh heh. I wish.
Now I really have to call BS. Here's your quote again:
Oprah, Rosa Parks, Bill Cosby and Chuck D have been been going after misogynistic and violent lyrics for some time
The tense you used is actually Present Perfect Progressive, which describes an action that began in the past, continues in the present, and may continue into the future.
I still assert that Rosa Parks is not going after anyone because she croaked a few years back. I now further assert that you don't know your English grammar very well.
I could have just left it at his originial apologoy of, "Bad choice of words, sorry" or whatever he said at 6am when no one was listening anyway.
What really got me was when he decided to go on Sharpton's radio show. My reaction to that was, "Oh no! Haven't you learned anything? Don't feed the trolls!"
But, of course, he did feed them and lost his job for it. What a dumbass.
But the situation that the article was discussing was the implications of somebody bailing out early on a contract... which, in particular, if a person's financial situation has changed and made it so they are no longer able to fulfill their obligation on their part of the contract, it is only proper that the contract be terminated, immediately.
I'm not sure how you can say that. Let's say I hire you to mow my lawn for the summer. You faithfully mow my lawn every two weeks, but at the end of the summer, can I say, "Sorry, my financial situations has changed, and it is only proper that our contract be terminated immediately. I hope you didn't need to be paid for all that work."
Well, the law says that I need to pay, and if you took me to court over the matter, I would lose.
But it seems to me that if there is a significant financial obligation that is supposed to be part of any early termination of a contract and it is because of a change in finances that the person wants out of the contract in the first place, then throwing a fee at them just for bailing out is really just kicking someone when they are down.
Well, that isn't really the point. If you think of it from the part of the ISP, typically these early termination fees are for the "free modem" or "free installation" offers. They come with strings attached: you have to subscribe for a whole year. If you cancel early, then the ISP doesn't recoup their costs associated with giving you a "free modem" or whatever. That is what the termination fee is about.
Think of it this way: you can either pay a $150 installation fee, or you can get free installation, but you have to pay a $150 termination fee if you terminate inside of 12 months.
Of course, in the case of a tenant who is moving out before his lease is up, a landlord certainly has the ability to deduct any such fees from the tenant's damage deposit. So what I think that this then becomes that if an ISP is going to want to charge a customer for cancelling early, should the ISP also require a deposit? I'm inclined to think so, personally.
Let me see if I can get the following point across, because it is very important: A security deposit belongs to the depositor. So when one of my tenants gives me his security deposit, it is still his money! I may be holding onto it for him, but it is not mine. I cannot just take it willy-nilly, and there are laws governing how I am to care for this money.
In other words, a security deposit has nothing to do with early termination fees. My tenant's security deposits belong to them just the same whether they are deposited in their bank account or mine.
The same would go for an ISP, if they held a deposit (and, indeed, sometimes cellphone companies and other utilities will hold a deposit). That money belongs to the customer. It doesn't matter if a termination fee comes out of a security deposit or the customer's bank account, because that money is still the customer's.
Woman with an abusive boyfriend/spouse/shackup/whatever.
Boyfriend beats her up. She doesn't feel too good. Got a bad headache now and her vision is blurry. She wants to go to the ER, but she knows if she does, her boyfriend will go to jail again. Does she go seek medical attention? Should she have to weigh her health against her boyfriend being taken away? Against what he'll do to her when he's out on bond?
Now maybe you or I think boyfriend belongs in jail, but that's beside the point. The point is she probably doesn't. After all, she's still with him. She still goes back to him again and again.
The reasons women come back to abusive boyfriends are also beside the point. The fact is they do. And they don't want their abusive boyfriends in jail. And the pete's sake, their health shouldn't be sacrificed because of it. They should be able to seek medical attention without fear of repercussions.
That is why I am against mandatory reporting. Health and medical treatment should be a private matter between doctor and patient. If the victim wanted the police involved, she would have called 911 already.
Naturally you don't own the copyright to your image if someone else takes a picture of you and you sign a waiver giving up your copyright to that particular image and likeness.
Whoever creates a work owns the copyright, unless the creator signs away the copyright (in the case of work for hire, etc.) So if I take a picture of you, your dog, even Michael Crook, I own the copyright on that image.
What you are thinking about in your post is what's called a "model release". It's a little wrinkle in copyright law. It says that even though I own the copyright to anything I create, I can't use that photo commercially if there is a person who can be identified in the photo unless that person gives permission. But make no mistake about it. If I take a picture of you, I can display it wherever I want (including my webpage), as long as I'm not using it commercially, without your permission.
This is why the newspaper can post your picture in an article, even if you object to it. It's called an "editorial" work.
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever I want to stoke my fragile male ego, I bend my wife over and fuck her up the ass.
What gratification is there in toilet lids?
The SVN devs have known from the beginning that the lack of merge tracking constitutes, to use their verbiage, a "headache". For 5 long years, SVN's "Best Practices" solution was to track merges manually in the commit log messages. This "Best Practice" could be best described as, to use the technical terminology, "really fucking error-prone."
Look, I like SVN, I use SVN, I hope they get merge tracking (and 'svn obliterate', as long as I'm creating my Christmas List) ASAP. My only point here is that the great-grandparent's claim, that "It's trivial to branch and merge in SVN", is a heaping, stinking load of crap, to use the technical term. You know it, I know it, CollabNet knows it, everybody knows it.
I'm guessing that even sqlrob (173498) knows it.
subversion lacks multiple merge points.
Making a single branch and then a single merge is trivial in subversion. Doing anything more complicated is a nightmare.
atomic checkins?
'cvs mv'?
'cvs cp'?
And that's without even exerting 3 brain cells.
I've heard good things about them, but have never tried them myself.
Well, I'm not even sure how to respond here. The whole point of bringing up illegals posing as legals was to show that the tax treatment isn't what makes illegals attractive to hire. I didn't use that example to make your point easier to refute. I used that example because your argument is so easy to refute.
But since you can't make that mental jump, I'll refute your argument anyhow. So you have all of these illegals working under the table. What's to stop a citizen from doing the same thing? Some silly law? I'm not even sure that the US citizen would be breaking any laws by working under the table (don't have to file tax returns if you don't owe tax, and these grape pickers aren't making enough money to owe tax). Of course, the employer would be violating half a dozen laws, but the employer already has proved that he doesn't much care about those laws since he hires illegals.
And why wouldn't Americans be more competitive for those grape-picking under the table jobs? I mean, we live here. We don't have to make the dangerous border crossing to and from Mexico each year. In theory, we should be able to work for less than the illegal migrants. But yet illegal immigrants totally dominate in this type of employment. Any ideas why?
It can't be the payroll tax, because again, no payroll tax is due on under the table employment, whether the employee is authorized to work here or not. Again, I'm going to have to say that I totally don't buy your payroll tax argument.
I usually just upload some pics to Costco and have them ship 'em to my parents. Free shipping, cheap prints. Very easy.
Mom seems to like them.
The standard for freedom that you describe is called "Financial Independence". Indeed, very few people ever reach that point (passive income exceeds living expenses), even in retirement (most retirees must tap their nest egg's principal, not just live off of appreciation, dividends, and interest).
:)
But can we even describe that as "true freedom", as you say? After all, a person with way more than $800k well-invested may still have responsibilities. To his wife, to his kids, to his family. To his employees, community, church.
Simply accumulating $800k doesn't buy you the ability to do whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want, and to whomever you want.
But then look at a bum on the street. He goes wherever he wants whenever he wants. He doesn't work, save asking passers-by for nickels, dimes, quarters each afternoon. He has no responsibilities to anybody, and has nothing to lose. That sounds an awful lot like freedom to me.
Of course, given the choice between being the bum on the street and having a high net worth, I would choose the high net worth, and he probably would as well. The funny thing is, though, that bum on the street probably has a strange, idealized view of what it's like to have more money than you need. My guess is that you suffer from that same perception-misalignment.
I guess a million bucks isn't what it used to be.
In the Orthodox movement, the standard is that the donation must be to save a specific person's life. Conservative and Reform rabbis, however, do not universally accept this restriction. Many will interpret the requirement of Pikuach Nefesh to be so tantamount (after all, it supersedes all but three Jewish laws) that donation to an organ bank is indeed permissible, and in fact encouraged.
But I agree that he contention that anyone who is truly from Pikesville would not be an organ donor is ludicrous. I have a good friend who is from Pikesville, she is Jewish, and she is an organ donor.
It couldn't have been a DMCA "we own the copyright, now take it down" takedown notice, because those only apply to copyrightable works.
What probably happened was Digg got a letter saying, "You have posted a DRM circumvention tool. If you don't remove it, we will sue your testicles into the stratosphere."
It's different from a takedown notice, but it had the same effect.
Will you have me believe that the explosion of p2p mp3 sharing had nothing to do with a) the proliferation of broadband, and b) free music? That if the RIAA hadn't gone on a massive lawsuit campaign, no one would want free music?
Well, I think that you are full of it.
I never said he had to just walk out the front door in a huff. I merely asked a question.
He said he wanted to keep the job. I asked why he was so attached.
I think it's a perfectly valid question. It's not like there aren't other jobs out there.
Again, no one said he had to leave before he had something else lined up, so relax my friend.
Is it confirmed that takedown notices were even issued? Or is that just speculation?
For all we know, the MPAA just made a few phone calls threatening lawsuits.
Let me rephrase, for the slow.
If I could get the same results with a phone camera as I can get with a dedicated digital camera, I would happily ditch the dedicated digital camera.
I do not, as you suggest, use a large camera with large lenses because I have something to prove while taking pictures.
Neither do I consider myself to be part of an elite minority. An excellent entry-level dSLR that takes great pictures can be had for half the cost of this Nokia phone.
What I don't get is why the 400D's white balance is off by a country mile. I mean, c'mon, Canon.
As both a dSLR and a camera phone owner, do you really think that I lug around that big camera for my health? Do you really think that I have spent thousands of dollars on camera equipment because my wallet was too heavy and I needed something to lighten it up?
Seriously, if I could just use the camera on my phone (which I am carrying around anyway) to get the same results as I can get with my dSLR, there is no way in heck I'd bother with the dSLR.
So have I taken decent photos with my camera phone? Yes. Are we going to see a decline in dSLR sales and an increase in camera phone sales? Heh heh. I wish.
I still assert that Rosa Parks is not going after anyone because she croaked a few years back. I now further assert that you don't know your English grammar very well.
I could have just left it at his originial apologoy of, "Bad choice of words, sorry" or whatever he said at 6am when no one was listening anyway.
What really got me was when he decided to go on Sharpton's radio show. My reaction to that was, "Oh no! Haven't you learned anything? Don't feed the trolls!"
But, of course, he did feed them and lost his job for it. What a dumbass.
Hey Imus: YHBT. HTH. HAND.
Well, the law says that I need to pay, and if you took me to court over the matter, I would lose.Well, that isn't really the point. If you think of it from the part of the ISP, typically these early termination fees are for the "free modem" or "free installation" offers. They come with strings attached: you have to subscribe for a whole year. If you cancel early, then the ISP doesn't recoup their costs associated with giving you a "free modem" or whatever. That is what the termination fee is about.
Think of it this way: you can either pay a $150 installation fee, or you can get free installation, but you have to pay a $150 termination fee if you terminate inside of 12 months.Let me see if I can get the following point across, because it is very important: A security deposit belongs to the depositor. So when one of my tenants gives me his security deposit, it is still his money! I may be holding onto it for him, but it is not mine. I cannot just take it willy-nilly, and there are laws governing how I am to care for this money.
In other words, a security deposit has nothing to do with early termination fees. My tenant's security deposits belong to them just the same whether they are deposited in their bank account or mine.
The same would go for an ISP, if they held a deposit (and, indeed, sometimes cellphone companies and other utilities will hold a deposit). That money belongs to the customer. It doesn't matter if a termination fee comes out of a security deposit or the customer's bank account, because that money is still the customer's.
Did that make any sense?
Looks like it was a huge part of the American medical establishment.
Woman with an abusive boyfriend/spouse/shackup/whatever.
Boyfriend beats her up. She doesn't feel too good. Got a bad headache now and her vision is blurry. She wants to go to the ER, but she knows if she does, her boyfriend will go to jail again. Does she go seek medical attention? Should she have to weigh her health against her boyfriend being taken away? Against what he'll do to her when he's out on bond?
Now maybe you or I think boyfriend belongs in jail, but that's beside the point. The point is she probably doesn't. After all, she's still with him. She still goes back to him again and again.
The reasons women come back to abusive boyfriends are also beside the point. The fact is they do. And they don't want their abusive boyfriends in jail. And the pete's sake, their health shouldn't be sacrificed because of it. They should be able to seek medical attention without fear of repercussions.
That is why I am against mandatory reporting. Health and medical treatment should be a private matter between doctor and patient. If the victim wanted the police involved, she would have called 911 already.
What are the statistics on kids who never get medical attention for injuries because of mandatory reporting?
There are certain things that people should be able to do without fear, and seeking medical attention should be one of them.
What you are thinking about in your post is what's called a "model release". It's a little wrinkle in copyright law. It says that even though I own the copyright to anything I create, I can't use that photo commercially if there is a person who can be identified in the photo unless that person gives permission. But make no mistake about it. If I take a picture of you, I can display it wherever I want (including my webpage), as long as I'm not using it commercially, without your permission.
This is why the newspaper can post your picture in an article, even if you object to it. It's called an "editorial" work.