A nice theory, but it's also nonsense. What you describe is a long-shot gamble, hardly enough to make your point. At that point in life, they're going to either choose to create or they're going to choose not to, and would probably offer their kids more financial benefit simply by flipping burgers.
Whichever is longer? I disagree, I think a "whichever comes first" would be more appropriate. But I do think you're on a much more logical track than current law. Personally, I favour something more along the lines of 7 to 14 years, as the likelihood of software somehow getting a clear-cut difference in treatment from other works.
I think it's important for software to enter the public domain before it becomes completely useless and before the origins of the works are lost to the mire. It would certainly help avoid problems like we saw with the SCO lawsuits several years ago that sought to stifle rather than foster the growth and innovation of the marketplace.
First off, the definition of "sex site" is always questionable in this kind of situation, especially a workplace. Second, an infected computer is a pretty effective way to "hit" a lot of porn in a short period of time, at least as network monitors would count them. Third, it's been several months, meaning any number of variables could have changed that would significantly change the quantity of "hits".
It feels silly to count "hits" in this day and age. I'd better stop reading this thread before I get nostalgic for the days when I got to hate Geocities.
This kind of thing is a great example of why long posthumous copyrights need to be abolished. Along with a certan quantity of other copyright schemes. This in no way encourages the creation of new works, nor innovation except in the field of fivolous lawsuits.
They're essentially saying that if I have the right to listen to all the tracks, I cannot choose to listen to them in the same order they put them in unless they've been paid? pure nonsense.
The only reason I bother with Facebook at this point (the only "social media" network I actually check) is that I have discovered that I like knowing what my cousins across the country are up to. It's hard to stay connected to family in this day and age on a day to day basis without it.
If it weren't for that, I'd have deleted the thing years ago. I could care less about the group photos and whatnot from the blurb.
Everything is a risk on some level or another. I wouldn't want to be protected from all them. The cost of doing so both in lost opportunities and in lost liberty and freedom are simply too great.
Does it mean better coders, or better language? Seems like the results are ambiguous in their meaning.
Re:Subscriptions are going to kill companies
on
Break Microsoft Up
·
· Score: 1
I've been rolling out LibreOffice and Gnumeric due to the cost of Microsoft Office at work, the only problemd I've run into are the fonts that come with Office not being present and Microsoft Office itself not handling LibreOffice's native formats when users forget and send an MS Office user a file in those formats. If it weren't for the sheer number of people in this company who throw a fit when you try to explain that Outlook is not the only way to read E-mail, I could probably convert the whole company to open-source office software without any problems. Most of these users are medical personnel who are largely oblivious to how to use MS Office in the first place beyond simple typing anyway.
The post was in response to "no one is going to take special care for your one package and make the plane late." It only takes one case to disprove such a claim. First, it makes the assertion that no one is going to take care of your luggage properly. That may be broadly the case, but is not universal. Second, it assumes that failure to treat luggage like crap automatically makes a plane late, which is patently false. It doesn't take better than an anecdote to defeat a sweeping generalization.
I find it difficult to believe that 2008 on WN was so different from today's WN. I've flown them multiple times since, and have had nothing but good luck with their baggage handling. In fact, once my luggage made my flight while the TSA lines kept us to a later flight and a re-route through two unanticipated cities. But we got there with luggage waiting for us, not much later.
WN has always been good to us, even if the frills are few and far between. I don't judge my three-hour hop by whether they brought me a meal. I judge it by whether I got where I was headed in a reasonable amount of time. If that means I pack a sandwich, so be it.
Southwest will take special care AND make sure your plane is on time. I once flew home to Dallas with my wife from Philadelphia with over 50 bottles of Dogfish Head Beer packed carefully amongst our four duffel bags. I advised the counter that there were glass bottles in our bags, and they slapped "fragile" stickers on and every bottle made it safely to Dallas.
I think we actually largely agree here. There is nothing wrong with your soapbox. In fact, I think your points are some of the more important ones I've seen on the whole on this article.
I'm convinced that a lot of curriculum is written to satisfy bullet-points, not to benefit students or to help teachers benefit students. Unfortunately, while the bullets themselves are often good goals, they often come at the expense of what makes them actually come together into something useful.
Might as well build an engine with great specifications by the numbers and the finest quality control on the parts, but leave out all the wires and housings because the spec sheet didn't list them specifically.
That's where a lot of standardized tests used by the education department tend to lead as well.
Sure, part of learning math is doing the math, but the most important part of learning math is understanding what is done and why. And how to recognize that something is off and your answer is wrong, and then go back and figure out how.
NASA, and NACA before it, was always funded for the purposes of applied science. The X-planes, the space program, the controlled impact demonstration...their projects used to be about proving sciences for application into military (and in fewer cases, but cases nonetheless, civil) aviation and systems. The reason it no longer finds ease in getting funds and approval is that it has ceased to be about scaring the living crap out of Russians.
The constitution was written to protect against a great many things that were not yet invented. It hasn't been a success on all levels, but it has been at least somewhat successful in many cases.
NOAA must be biased and full of Republicans. Everybody's saying the sea will rise 3 feet in short order, so it must be true.
In all seriousness, these NOAA numbers are lot more convincing than the various theories in the three feet range. The biggest mistake seems to be the assumption that the changes from which they derive this "three feet" number won't be offset in various ways by other changes.
It's how a lot of fearmongering in the economics world works as well. Point out something that would change and then pretend nothing else will change around it. In fact, we're hearing it right now from the Department of Justice in their argument against the US Airways/American Airlines merger, acting as if the reduction to three so-called "legacy carriers" would create an oligopoly, despite Southwest, JetBlue, Virgin America, and so forth being major forces in the marketplace at this point.
And the ones retained need to be simplified. It shouldn't take a lawyer just to know how to obey the law (if there aren't contradictions preventing doing so at all).
Slashdot Mirror
A nice theory, but it's also nonsense. What you describe is a long-shot gamble, hardly enough to make your point. At that point in life, they're going to either choose to create or they're going to choose not to, and would probably offer their kids more financial benefit simply by flipping burgers.
Whichever is longer? I disagree, I think a "whichever comes first" would be more appropriate. But I do think you're on a much more logical track than current law. Personally, I favour something more along the lines of 7 to 14 years, as the likelihood of software somehow getting a clear-cut difference in treatment from other works.
I think it's important for software to enter the public domain before it becomes completely useless and before the origins of the works are lost to the mire. It would certainly help avoid problems like we saw with the SCO lawsuits several years ago that sought to stifle rather than foster the growth and innovation of the marketplace.
First off, the definition of "sex site" is always questionable in this kind of situation, especially a workplace. Second, an infected computer is a pretty effective way to "hit" a lot of porn in a short period of time, at least as network monitors would count them. Third, it's been several months, meaning any number of variables could have changed that would significantly change the quantity of "hits".
It feels silly to count "hits" in this day and age. I'd better stop reading this thread before I get nostalgic for the days when I got to hate Geocities.
Unfortunately, your point is unassailable.
This kind of thing is a great example of why long posthumous copyrights need to be abolished. Along with a certan quantity of other copyright schemes. This in no way encourages the creation of new works, nor innovation except in the field of fivolous lawsuits.
My hat is off to you, good sir.
They're essentially saying that if I have the right to listen to all the tracks, I cannot choose to listen to them in the same order they put them in unless they've been paid? pure nonsense.
The only reason I bother with Facebook at this point (the only "social media" network I actually check) is that I have discovered that I like knowing what my cousins across the country are up to. It's hard to stay connected to family in this day and age on a day to day basis without it.
If it weren't for that, I'd have deleted the thing years ago. I could care less about the group photos and whatnot from the blurb.
Everything is a risk on some level or another. I wouldn't want to be protected from all them. The cost of doing so both in lost opportunities and in lost liberty and freedom are simply too great.
Does it mean better coders, or better language? Seems like the results are ambiguous in their meaning.
I've been rolling out LibreOffice and Gnumeric due to the cost of Microsoft Office at work, the only problemd I've run into are the fonts that come with Office not being present and Microsoft Office itself not handling LibreOffice's native formats when users forget and send an MS Office user a file in those formats. If it weren't for the sheer number of people in this company who throw a fit when you try to explain that Outlook is not the only way to read E-mail, I could probably convert the whole company to open-source office software without any problems. Most of these users are medical personnel who are largely oblivious to how to use MS Office in the first place beyond simple typing anyway.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm sure you also hate buses for not being limousines and fishing boats for not being yachts.
You're absolutely correct...except for context.
The post was in response to "no one is going to take special care for your one package and make the plane late." It only takes one case to disprove such a claim. First, it makes the assertion that no one is going to take care of your luggage properly. That may be broadly the case, but is not universal. Second, it assumes that failure to treat luggage like crap automatically makes a plane late, which is patently false. It doesn't take better than an anecdote to defeat a sweeping generalization.
...as long as you don't roll on Shabbos.
I find it difficult to believe that 2008 on WN was so different from today's WN. I've flown them multiple times since, and have had nothing but good luck with their baggage handling. In fact, once my luggage made my flight while the TSA lines kept us to a later flight and a re-route through two unanticipated cities. But we got there with luggage waiting for us, not much later.
WN has always been good to us, even if the frills are few and far between. I don't judge my three-hour hop by whether they brought me a meal. I judge it by whether I got where I was headed in a reasonable amount of time. If that means I pack a sandwich, so be it.
Southwest will take special care AND make sure your plane is on time. I once flew home to Dallas with my wife from Philadelphia with over 50 bottles of Dogfish Head Beer packed carefully amongst our four duffel bags. I advised the counter that there were glass bottles in our bags, and they slapped "fragile" stickers on and every bottle made it safely to Dallas.
Well played, sir!
I think we actually largely agree here. There is nothing wrong with your soapbox. In fact, I think your points are some of the more important ones I've seen on the whole on this article.
I'm convinced that a lot of curriculum is written to satisfy bullet-points, not to benefit students or to help teachers benefit students. Unfortunately, while the bullets themselves are often good goals, they often come at the expense of what makes them actually come together into something useful.
Might as well build an engine with great specifications by the numbers and the finest quality control on the parts, but leave out all the wires and housings because the spec sheet didn't list them specifically.
That's where a lot of standardized tests used by the education department tend to lead as well.
Sure, part of learning math is doing the math, but the most important part of learning math is understanding what is done and why. And how to recognize that something is off and your answer is wrong, and then go back and figure out how.
NASA, and NACA before it, was always funded for the purposes of applied science. The X-planes, the space program, the controlled impact demonstration...their projects used to be about proving sciences for application into military (and in fewer cases, but cases nonetheless, civil) aviation and systems. The reason it no longer finds ease in getting funds and approval is that it has ceased to be about scaring the living crap out of Russians.
The constitution was written to protect against a great many things that were not yet invented. It hasn't been a success on all levels, but it has been at least somewhat successful in many cases.
I see no reason to let TFA negate the relevance of related technological advances and crossovers of technological investments.
NOAA must be biased and full of Republicans. Everybody's saying the sea will rise 3 feet in short order, so it must be true.
In all seriousness, these NOAA numbers are lot more convincing than the various theories in the three feet range. The biggest mistake seems to be the assumption that the changes from which they derive this "three feet" number won't be offset in various ways by other changes.
It's how a lot of fearmongering in the economics world works as well. Point out something that would change and then pretend nothing else will change around it. In fact, we're hearing it right now from the Department of Justice in their argument against the US Airways/American Airlines merger, acting as if the reduction to three so-called "legacy carriers" would create an oligopoly, despite Southwest, JetBlue, Virgin America, and so forth being major forces in the marketplace at this point.
And the ones retained need to be simplified. It shouldn't take a lawyer just to know how to obey the law (if there aren't contradictions preventing doing so at all).