Nice straw-man. Let's see what other fallacies you can come up with.
We don't know how the universe 'started'. This doesn't mean that everything came from nothing, it means we don't know. It certainly doesn't mean "we don't know, so a magic being who knows everything and can do anything created the universe".
Religion, which claims to have all the answers, can never accept "I don't know". They just instantly translate it to "God did it".
Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.
When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons — this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.
What's the ROI for non-labor engineering expenses vs. non-labor marketing and sales expenses? I think you'll find your answer to the budget question here.
Debatable. IMHO running a piece of software shouldn't be governed by copyright law, but certainly some parts of the software industry believe that you need a licence to waive the copyright laws, since you are inherently copying the software into RAM. I don't think this has ever been tested in court (?)
WoWGlider lost a case where Blizzard claimed that them copying the game into memory violated their copyright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(bot)
You'll be fined no mater what the jury system determines. Defending yourself from any charges that are filed will take a non-trivial amount of money. You could lose your job (who wants a possible criminal working for them?), your possessions, etc. and still be found not guilty or have the charges dropped.
Move to a new host. Don't talk about the old host, don't post the script, don't describe it at all. You don't want the lawsuit/criminal charges that will follow.
1) Form shell company
2) Have shell company send take down notices about my competitors website
3) Watch them vanish from the search results
4) Profit!
Wrong. Police officers can react to anything that is in "plain sight", meaning anything that escapes from your car, be it photons or small particles which we refer to as "scent"
Not true. The U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in U.S. v. Kyllo (2001) that the police can not use infrared cameras to locate "suspicious" concentrations of heat in private places and then get warrants to search. So anything that escapes is not "in plain sight".
The John Carter series, of course. With the movie coming out, I suspect you'll be able to find these everywhere. Ignore the last novel, though, he only wrote the outline and his son finished it, poorly IMHO.
You got the easy version of the quest: Genesis Chapter 7:2-3
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female.
Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
It didn't cause a crash, it allowed the execution of arbitrary code,
No it didn't. Read the advisory again and note the part that says (emphasis mine)
"... Successful exploitation may allow execution of arbitrary code with kernel-mode privileges"
Really? Take a look at these graphs and say that again. Looks to me that the debt went down from around 1945 until around 1980 (or when Reagan took office) with another downturn at the end of Clinton's term.
But he gets to subtract that cost from his income so he pays less taxes on that. Do I get to subtract the cost of fuel off my income? He gets to count his food as a business expense, do I get to do so? Why do businesses get to subtract any expense off their income, but I don't get to do the same?
The American judicial system did not initially accept drug prohibition. Prosecutors argued that possessing drugs was a tax violation, as no legal licenses to sell drugs were in existence; hence, a person possessing drugs must have purchased them from an unlicensed source. After some wrangling, this was accepted as federal jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Source Prohibition of Drugs
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you care if someone uses cocaine when you hire them? Aren't you hiring them for their skills, not their 'hobbies'?
Nice straw-man. Let's see what other fallacies you can come up with.
We don't know how the universe 'started'. This doesn't mean that everything came from nothing, it means we don't know. It certainly doesn't mean "we don't know, so a magic being who knows everything and can do anything created the universe".
Religion, which claims to have all the answers, can never accept "I don't know". They just instantly translate it to "God did it".
This is management. What does that have to do with IT?
Many folks would be wrong then.
Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons. When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons — this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.
Evolution Explained - Micro vs Macro
How about Gone With the Wind, E.T., Doctor Zhivago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films#Highest-grossing_films_adjusted_for_inflation
Why is information like this on computers that are connected to the internet?
I'm curious as to why in the article they didn't mention exactly what model of e-reader is used.
... delivered via Chegg’s DRM-protected e-Reader ...", which is, according to this page, just an HTML 5 web page.
It does, and I quote "
What's the ROI for non-labor engineering expenses vs. non-labor marketing and sales expenses? I think you'll find your answer to the budget question here.
What invisible cap? They tell you exactly what it is here
Debatable. IMHO running a piece of software shouldn't be governed by copyright law, but certainly some parts of the software industry believe that you need a licence to waive the copyright laws, since you are inherently copying the software into RAM. I don't think this has ever been tested in court (?)
WoWGlider lost a case where Blizzard claimed that them copying the game into memory violated their copyright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(bot)
You'll be fined no mater what the jury system determines. Defending yourself from any charges that are filed will take a non-trivial amount of money. You could lose your job (who wants a possible criminal working for them?), your possessions, etc. and still be found not guilty or have the charges dropped.
Move to a new host. Don't talk about the old host, don't post the script, don't describe it at all. You don't want the lawsuit/criminal charges that will follow.
1) Form shell company
2) Have shell company send take down notices about my competitors website
3) Watch them vanish from the search results
4) Profit!
Asimov also did some books (under the name Paul French) that were intended for juveniles - the Lucky Star series.
Wrong. Police officers can react to anything that is in "plain sight", meaning anything that escapes from your car, be it photons or small particles which we refer to as "scent"
Not true. The U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in U.S. v. Kyllo (2001) that the police can not use infrared cameras to locate "suspicious" concentrations of heat in private places and then get warrants to search. So anything that escapes is not "in plain sight".
The John Carter series, of course. With the movie coming out, I suspect you'll be able to find these everywhere. Ignore the last novel, though, he only wrote the outline and his son finished it, poorly IMHO.
You got the easy version of the quest:
Genesis Chapter 7:2-3
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female.
Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
Challenge excepted. Try base 1+10.908712114635714i
It didn't cause a crash, it allowed the execution of arbitrary code,
No it didn't. Read the advisory again and note the part that says (emphasis mine)
"... Successful exploitation may allow execution of arbitrary code with kernel-mode privileges"
They made (net income) 1.249 billion last year.
Maybe because they give away the encryption keys http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-31/rim-s-agreement-with-india-is-likely-to-foreshadow-wider-government-access.html
Really? Take a look at these graphs and say that again. Looks to me that the debt went down from around 1945 until around 1980 (or when Reagan took office) with another downturn at the end of Clinton's term.
Good thing HTML5 won't need all those things to run code on your machine.
But he gets to subtract that cost from his income so he pays less taxes on that. Do I get to subtract the cost of fuel off my income? He gets to count his food as a business expense, do I get to do so? Why do businesses get to subtract any expense off their income, but I don't get to do the same?
The American judicial system did not initially accept drug prohibition. Prosecutors argued that possessing drugs was a tax violation, as no legal licenses to sell drugs were in existence; hence, a person possessing drugs must have purchased them from an unlicensed source. After some wrangling, this was accepted as federal jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Source Prohibition of Drugs