If you think talking to a child is "child pornography", I suggest you look to other definitions of "intercourse". And further I suggest you turn off "safe search", use an unfiltered Internet connection, and educate yourself on what regular pornography is, so you don't make that mistake again.
That's right. Humans abdicate responsibility and leave it to some of the most primitive organisms on the planet. I think we should scoop the stuff up and put it in every swimming pool in the Hamptons.
Perhaps you would be interested in meeting an acquaintance of mine who is prepared to do just that. Her name's Irene.
They probably have Constitutional immunity. The proper recourse against the legislators is to recall those legislators or, if the law in that jurisdiction doesn't permit recall elections, vote them out at the next opportunity. The proper recourse against the law itself is to sue an appropriate party (often a part of the Executive Branch) to have it ruled unconstitutional, assuming you have standing.
The problem with these so-called recourses is they don't provide sufficient deterrent to legislators. They can pass unconstitutional law after unconstitutional law; those which are unchallenged or survive the courts stand, those which do not end up being passed again with slightly different wording until they do survive the courts. As long as there's no actual punishment for legislators (and I don't mean something as blunt and as uncertain as an election), they'll keep doing it.
Big brother is already THERE. There's cops everywhere. They demand (and have gotten) the power to arbitrarily search anyone entering the city, or using the subway. Their enforcement of the law is, of course, haphazard and largely unjust, but there's no shortage of enforcers.
Oracle's lawyers know nothing about programming, apparently. If things worked like they're trying to say they do, Microsoft could sue anyone that made software for Windows because at some point you used a header that included the Windows API function names.
That's the result they desire. And oddly enough, the FSF appears to take the same position on occasion.
Take a look at the Bering Strait on a map sometime. The only reason it isn't the "middle of nowhere" is because it's actually closer to the outer edge.
Hell, even reputable companies are doing this. I see it all the time. We wind up cleaning off "Ask Toolbar" and other sorts of shitty crapware all the time, and it wandered in as a tagalong with Adobe Reader and Java updates!
OK, so that's Adobe and Oracle... what were the reputable companies doing this?
While it is a fuzzy area, resisting arrest and by doing so you are also endangering the lives of others is something I also consider justifies the taking of a life. Preferably, you should submit to an officer and then fight the battle out in court and perhaps file false reporting procedures or wrongful arrest charges against that officer if they have erred knowingly. There is a point to a rule of law here.
Here, let me explain rule of law as it is actually practiced: In a court of law, the word of a cop is worth everything (that is, it is sufficient to constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt of any wrongdoing the cop claims to have witnessed), and your word is worth nothing. Submitting to an officer guarantees he will get away with whatever injustice he has perpetrated; not submitting simply means that more injustice will be perpetrated upon you, either by that officer or by the so-called justice system.
In Business School they are taught intangible assets are just cause and effect relationships that can bring in more value indirectly. An accountant can only provide tangible assets in its books. Tangible means physical.
This is absolutely false. Intangibles certainly do appear on a companies books.
But it is still the case that wrong urban planning incurs a debt : case in point, suburbia will take tens of years to resorb, until cities are densified again.
It might be best to confirm there is consensus on the requirements before working on a fix.
CEO/PHB voice here How does refactoring bring shareholder value? How does it boast the company's stock price? How does it increase revenue?.../CEO/PHB voice
Which wouldn't quite be so bad if they'd actually listen to the answers. The general answer being "If we refactored/rewrote this system, we'd have many fewer customer-visible critical bugs. We'd thus be able to spend less time putting out fires, and more time building version 11.0 or the next product. And the customers would be happier, and more likely to actually buy the next product."
But no, to your PHB this sounds like white noise. So does any other answer.
but there are vanishingly few people on here who seem to understand how patents actually work, how to read them, and how to understand what is covered.
No, it's the pro-patent side who misunderstands how patents actually work. They think that just because a claim can be interpreted narrowly, that it will be interpreted narrowly. In fact claims are interpreted broadly, and prior art narrowly.
Most ideas are obvious is retrospect to people who are experts in a field, but its a fallacy to believe it was obvious to those same people BEFORE they saw it.
There is a difference between demonstrating people who want political change in a non-democratic country, and people who go on a looting rampage in one of the richest democracies in the world.
Translation: Africans have the right to protest. Europeans (including the British) should be glad for what they have.
Where is the limit with political speech ? Is that forbidden to state the opinion that violent action is the only way to bring change in a corrupt system ? Not that I defend this opinion, but the fact that is is censored disturbs me deeply.
In the US, the test is whether your speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." However, the only courts likely to enforce this are SCOTUS itself and maybe the Federal appeals court if you're in a friendly circuit, and if you don't just plead guilty you'll likely be bankrupt and/or thoroughly abused in prison before the conviction is overturned. All the lower courts and state courts will use the reasoning of "ooh, he said 'violence'... guilty guilty guilty"
In the UK, just forget about it. 1984 came a long time ago there.
So don't consume their products if they're that fucking horrible. I don't remember it becoming compulsory to listen to shitty chart music.
I actually don't listen to music (theirs or anyone else's). But they harm me anyway, with the laws they get passed. So since piracy apparently does them great harm (source: them), I'm all for it.
the issue is not the law, its whoever enforces it, though saying cops should die is way over there on the other side of the spectrum, for every bad one how many thousands of decent ones are there?
On the close order of zero. Almost any cop will cover up, by acts of commission or omission, overtly bad acts by other cops. That makes them bad cops too.
I don't want to complain to loudly, but instead I just want to suggest that this issue call our attention to the bigger issue -- what institutions do we have in place to protect OSS software effectively as small OSS devs? Do such institutions work? In this case, thus far, they don't seem to be working.
They're the same institutions which protect copyrights in general. So the answer is an emphatic "NO"! What did you expect?
You really want to get to them? Reverse-engineer their code and post the reconstructed source publicly. Of course, since they're Russian they may not feel the US institutions which protect copyrights will work for them, so they'll just have you killed.
Using the DMCA to attempt to censor search engine results just makes you the bad guy.
Unless you are on slashdot. Then it matters who you are. If you are a record company people should not respect any of your licenses, copyrights, etc.
Absolutely. Record companies (at least RIAA and equivalent members) are the enemy and should be treated that way.
If you are Adobe, people should just take your stuff (break your copyright, etc.).
Adobe is a member of the BSA, an organization whose thuggishness knows little boundary. Not quite as bad as the RIAA (as they aren't writing new laws, though their predecessor organizations used to), but there's still a case for treating them as the enemy.
On further reflection, what I was referring to was around the time they introduced instant they also introduced that magnifying glass thing which is what makes me crazy. I'm one of those people that tracks what I'm reading on the screen with a mouse. I find myself constantly X'ing out of those previews.
It appears it has been changed so you have to click on the magnifying glass to get the preview, rather than just mouse-over. Actually, once you click on one magnifying glass, you then just have to move the mouse to get other previews, until you X out.
That's because unlike Google, Bing doesn't favor its own services over others. Google favors their news service, maps, YouTube, shopping and every other service over others. Bing returns results objectively.
Use Bing for "google stock price". What's the top link on the page? A link to Bing Finance.
Use Bing for "statue of liberty". Top link besides ads? Bing News. Also included are links to Bing Maps.
Try "purchase photoshop". Top link besides ads? Bing Shopping.
Among them is to separate CO2 emissions from food production from CO2 from personal transportation. This way you can say "A person has a Carbon footprint of X. Y% of this is from their diet and Z% is on their personal transportation". It avoids making dubious assumptions about people's activities, (such as assuming car occupants eat only the calories they need and are not overweight, or that all cycle routes are flat, or whatever).
Unfortunately, it has a systemic bias in favor of human-powered transportation. Suppose someone were to invent a sugar-powered bicycle just as efficient as a human being pedaling; your measure would still show the regular bicycle as having a lower operating carbon footprint, even though they are clearly the same.
It is also much more useful for comparison and policy making
None of this is useful for policy making; it's the other way around, the policy is decided and someone comes up with a measure to support it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think talking to a child is "child pornography", I suggest you look to other definitions of "intercourse". And further I suggest you turn off "safe search", use an unfiltered Internet connection, and educate yourself on what regular pornography is, so you don't make that mistake again.
Pedobear, despite his utility, is not yet an established concept in First Amendment jurisprudence.
Perhaps you would be interested in meeting an acquaintance of mine who is prepared to do just that. Her name's Irene.
The problem with these so-called recourses is they don't provide sufficient deterrent to legislators. They can pass unconstitutional law after unconstitutional law; those which are unchallenged or survive the courts stand, those which do not end up being passed again with slightly different wording until they do survive the courts. As long as there's no actual punishment for legislators (and I don't mean something as blunt and as uncertain as an election), they'll keep doing it.
Big brother is already THERE. There's cops everywhere. They demand (and have gotten) the power to arbitrarily search anyone entering the city, or using the subway. Their enforcement of the law is, of course, haphazard and largely unjust, but there's no shortage of enforcers.
That's the result they desire. And oddly enough, the FSF appears to take the same position on occasion.
Take a look at the Bering Strait on a map sometime. The only reason it isn't the "middle of nowhere" is because it's actually closer to the outer edge.
Here, take a look: Microsoft 2011Q4 Earnings
You'll see both "Intangibles" and "Goodwill" listed on the balance sheet.
OK, so that's Adobe and Oracle... what were the reputable companies doing this?
Here, let me explain rule of law as it is actually practiced: In a court of law, the word of a cop is worth everything (that is, it is sufficient to constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt of any wrongdoing the cop claims to have witnessed), and your word is worth nothing. Submitting to an officer guarantees he will get away with whatever injustice he has perpetrated; not submitting simply means that more injustice will be perpetrated upon you, either by that officer or by the so-called justice system.
This is absolutely false. Intangibles certainly do appear on a companies books.
It might be best to confirm there is consensus on the requirements before working on a fix.
Which wouldn't quite be so bad if they'd actually listen to the answers. The general answer being "If we refactored/rewrote this system, we'd have many fewer customer-visible critical bugs. We'd thus be able to spend less time putting out fires, and more time building version 11.0 or the next product. And the customers would be happier, and more likely to actually buy the next product."
But no, to your PHB this sounds like white noise. So does any other answer.
No, it's the pro-patent side who misunderstands how patents actually work. They think that just because a claim can be interpreted narrowly, that it will be interpreted narrowly. In fact claims are interpreted broadly, and prior art narrowly.
Except, of course, when they were.
Translation: Africans have the right to protest. Europeans (including the British) should be glad for what they have.
In the US, the test is whether your speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." However, the only courts likely to enforce this are SCOTUS itself and maybe the Federal appeals court if you're in a friendly circuit, and if you don't just plead guilty you'll likely be bankrupt and/or thoroughly abused in prison before the conviction is overturned. All the lower courts and state courts will use the reasoning of "ooh, he said 'violence'... guilty guilty guilty"
In the UK, just forget about it. 1984 came a long time ago there.
I actually don't listen to music (theirs or anyone else's). But they harm me anyway, with the laws they get passed. So since piracy apparently does them great harm (source: them), I'm all for it.
On the close order of zero. Almost any cop will cover up, by acts of commission or omission, overtly bad acts by other cops. That makes them bad cops too.
The people of Seoul (the nose you speak of) might disagree.
They're the same institutions which protect copyrights in general. So the answer is an emphatic "NO"! What did you expect?
You really want to get to them? Reverse-engineer their code and post the reconstructed source publicly. Of course, since they're Russian they may not feel the US institutions which protect copyrights will work for them, so they'll just have you killed.
Using the DMCA to attempt to censor search engine results just makes you the bad guy.
Absolutely. Record companies (at least RIAA and equivalent members) are the enemy and should be treated that way.
Adobe is a member of the BSA, an organization whose thuggishness knows little boundary. Not quite as bad as the RIAA (as they aren't writing new laws, though their predecessor organizations used to), but there's still a case for treating them as the enemy.
Wolfram Alpha also claims the result was computed by Mathematica. Can anyone with Mathematica confirm that it works there?
It appears it has been changed so you have to click on the magnifying glass to get the preview, rather than just mouse-over. Actually, once you click on one magnifying glass, you then just have to move the mouse to get other previews, until you X out.
Use Bing for "google stock price". What's the top link on the page? A link to Bing Finance.
Use Bing for "statue of liberty". Top link besides ads? Bing News. Also included are links to Bing Maps.
Try "purchase photoshop". Top link besides ads? Bing Shopping.
Run away, little troll, run away.
Unfortunately, it has a systemic bias in favor of human-powered transportation. Suppose someone were to invent a sugar-powered bicycle just as efficient as a human being pedaling; your measure would still show the regular bicycle as having a lower operating carbon footprint, even though they are clearly the same.
None of this is useful for policy making; it's the other way around, the policy is decided and someone comes up with a measure to support it.