Options -> Comment post mode: Plain Old Text. Contrary to what its name suggests, it actually interprets the supported html tags, but it keeps line breaks.
It's really something I've got for years. Apart from the main email address, I can easily set up a quite large number of others (with different domain parts, even!) and delete those again if I don't want or don't need it any more. And all get into the same inbox (and filter rules allow them to be sorted into separate folders). I currently have three mail addresses, with two different domain parts.
Are you hoping someone will provide you with a so-called "Obligatory XKCD Link?"
I would, but there's the danger I'd get the link right, thus meeting professional linking standards, which might get me in trouble since I don't have an XKCD linking license.
He contacted Apple about it and Apple didn't react. If it's not Apple's responsibility to react when contacted because of copyright violations, then it's not the Pirate Bay's responsibility to react either. Think about it.
1. "When Wolfire Games released their animal martial arts games, 'Lugaru HD', on the Mac App store," - subordinate clause telling you a time (and giving some additional information)
Subject of the subordinate clause: Wolfire Games Verb of the subordinate clause: released
2. "shortly after they could be forgiven for thinking they were seeing double." - Main clause, consisting of 2.1 "shortly after" - yet another determination of time (telling that follows was a short time after the time the subordinate clause was specifying) 2.2 "they could be forgiven for thinking they were seeing double." - the main part of the main clause (a linguist would probably have a nice name for that). Subject: "they" (referring back to Wolfire Games) Verb: "could be forgiven"
So the main clause clearly states that Wolfire Games could be forgiven, and has two additional parts, one saying when they could be forgiven (shortly after), and one saying for what they could be forgiven (for thinking they were seeing double).
Here's some news to you: There are different people on Slashdot! There are some people who think copying anything which was released by someone is OK. Those people would say there's no problem here. There are other people who think it is OK only as long as you don't sell the copy. Those would complain because here the copy is sold. And then there are yet other people who think it is not OK, unless explicitly permitted by the copyright holder. Those would also complain here, for obvious reasons.
Moreover, depending on whether they give credit to the original creators or not, there could also be plagiarism in play (note that plagiarism is different from copying: You are allowed to copy a GPLed program (explicitly allowed through the license), but you are not allowed to incorrectly claim you have written it. The latter would be plagiarism.
Also note that the summary speaks about a "counterfeit" version, which again is a separate issue: It's trying to make the people believe that they are buying the original, but actually they don't. For example, if you wrote a word processor all for yourself which looks and feels like MS Word (which would definitely be allowed, at least unless you'd violate some patents that way) and then sold it to people trying to trick them into believing they bought MS Word, then you'd selling a counterfeit.
And ultimately they used basically the same name as the original game, which, apart of being evidence of the counterfeit claim, also means they probably violated the trademark of the original producer.
You see, there are many things which even people in the first mentioned group (i.e. people who think everything should be OK to copy in any situation) could still disagree with.
Or maybe it's that at that time the communication abilities of the people in power were similarly constrained. I strongly doubt that the internal communication of the government/police is cut of in Egypt.
Why don't we use swords to fight in Afghanistan? After all, many wars in the past have been won using swords.
Note that the string theory multiverse is not the same as the many-worlds multiverse (those two concepts are not even mutually exclusive, so it could be that we live in a "double-multiverse"). The string theory multiverse is about truly independent universes with different physics. The many-worlds multiverse OTOH is about splitting worlds which even share a common past, and only differ in results of random events.
In other words, in a many-worlds parallel universe (MWPU), the electron still has the same charge, but has gone through the other slit. In a string theoretic parallel universe (STPU), it may have any charge. Now that STPU may also contain a double slit, and if both ST and MW are right, then the STPU will again consist of two MWPUs, one in which the electron went through one slit, and one in which it went through the other slit.
Even more surprising, somewhere there exists a universe in which slashdot posters actually get laid!
No. It might seem so at first sight, but this possibility is cancelled out by destructive interference between nerd strings around 42-dimensional black holes.
Note that the string theoretic multiverse is not the same as the Everett multiverse. The two are not mutually exclusive (i.e. it could even be that we live in a "double-multiverse") but they are conceptually different. The string theoretic multiverse consists of universes which have different laws of physics, and which develop independent of each other. The Everett multiverse OTOH consists of worlds (universes) which follow the same laws of physics, and even share the same past up to some point. It's just that at random events the worlds split, and in each world that event had another result.
I have Tourettes Syndrome (srsly), and have a habit of randomly clicking my mouse buttons on empty areas of the screen while reading. Let's see you read into THAT, bitches!
You are obviously very interested in white space. Expect empty pages to get top rank in your searches!
Actually, the mass changes, but the unit changes, too, so the mass would still be 1kg, but nevertheless less. Basically what we have is a mass inflation: Just as a dollar today doesn't represent the same value as the dollar 50 years ago, so does the kilogram today represent the same mass as it did 50 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Options -> Comment post mode: Plain Old Text.
Contrary to what its name suggests, it actually interprets the supported html tags, but it keeps line breaks.
Oops, I just noted my post can be misunderstood. I don't have my mail account at hotmail, obviously, but at another provider (web.de).
It's really something I've got for years. Apart from the main email address, I can easily set up a quite large number of others (with different domain parts, even!) and delete those again if I don't want or don't need it any more. And all get into the same inbox (and filter rules allow them to be sorted into separate folders). I currently have three mail addresses, with two different domain parts.
Are you hoping someone will provide you with a so-called "Obligatory XKCD Link?"
I would, but there's the danger I'd get the link right, thus meeting professional linking standards, which might get me in trouble since I don't have an XKCD linking license.
Well, maybe someone should check if the officer has the license to evaluate whether a text is engineering-level work.
He contacted Apple about it and Apple didn't react.
If it's not Apple's responsibility to react when contacted because of copyright violations, then it's not the Pirate Bay's responsibility to react either. Think about it.
No GPLed code allowed? That's news to me. ...
Well, yet another reason to never buy an iWhatever
No verb and no subject? Here's how I parse it:
1. "When Wolfire Games released their animal martial arts games, 'Lugaru HD', on the Mac App store," - subordinate clause telling you a time (and giving some additional information)
Subject of the subordinate clause: Wolfire Games
Verb of the subordinate clause: released
2. "shortly after they could be forgiven for thinking they were seeing double." - Main clause, consisting of
2.1 "shortly after" - yet another determination of time (telling that follows was a short time after the time the subordinate clause was specifying)
2.2 "they could be forgiven for thinking they were seeing double." - the main part of the main clause (a linguist would probably have a nice name for that).
Subject: "they" (referring back to Wolfire Games)
Verb: "could be forgiven"
So the main clause clearly states that Wolfire Games could be forgiven, and has two additional parts, one saying when they could be forgiven (shortly after), and one saying for what they could be forgiven (for thinking they were seeing double).
Here's some news to you: There are different people on Slashdot!
There are some people who think copying anything which was released by someone is OK. Those people would say there's no problem here.
There are other people who think it is OK only as long as you don't sell the copy. Those would complain because here the copy is sold.
And then there are yet other people who think it is not OK, unless explicitly permitted by the copyright holder. Those would also complain here, for obvious reasons.
Moreover, depending on whether they give credit to the original creators or not, there could also be plagiarism in play (note that plagiarism is different from copying: You are allowed to copy a GPLed program (explicitly allowed through the license), but you are not allowed to incorrectly claim you have written it. The latter would be plagiarism.
Also note that the summary speaks about a "counterfeit" version, which again is a separate issue: It's trying to make the people believe that they are buying the original, but actually they don't. For example, if you wrote a word processor all for yourself which looks and feels like MS Word (which would definitely be allowed, at least unless you'd violate some patents that way) and then sold it to people trying to trick them into believing they bought MS Word, then you'd selling a counterfeit.
And ultimately they used basically the same name as the original game, which, apart of being evidence of the counterfeit claim, also means they probably violated the trademark of the original producer.
You see, there are many things which even people in the first mentioned group (i.e. people who think everything should be OK to copy in any situation) could still disagree with.
Or maybe, kill yourself until you get reincarnated as a millionaire?
Well, it worked for Windows, didn't it?
However you have to admit that it probably killed a few bacteria. :-)
Maybe you could add an USB graphics card?
There is no epicenter of the big bang. The big bang happened everywhere.
Or maybe it's that at that time the communication abilities of the people in power were similarly constrained. I strongly doubt that the internal communication of the government/police is cut of in Egypt.
Why don't we use swords to fight in Afghanistan? After all, many wars in the past have been won using swords.
In the UK, most cars have manual transmissions, and deaths per vehicle mile are less than half the rate in the USA. The two factors may or may not be related.
Italians drive like lunatics, though.
Also, in the UK you drive on the left side of the road. Oh, and you have a queen.
Thinking about it, it's probably the queen. :-)
Let me guess ... is it named after an animal?
Well, all people are a lot of people. Unless the majority of the world population suddenly died without me noticing.
Must be a long time since you last checked. Even in the late 90s, I've had a 14.4 Kb/s modem.
Note that the string theory multiverse is not the same as the many-worlds multiverse (those two concepts are not even mutually exclusive, so it could be that we live in a "double-multiverse"). The string theory multiverse is about truly independent universes with different physics. The many-worlds multiverse OTOH is about splitting worlds which even share a common past, and only differ in results of random events.
In other words, in a many-worlds parallel universe (MWPU), the electron still has the same charge, but has gone through the other slit. In a string theoretic parallel universe (STPU), it may have any charge. Now that STPU may also contain a double slit, and if both ST and MW are right, then the STPU will again consist of two MWPUs, one in which the electron went through one slit, and one in which it went through the other slit.
Even more surprising, somewhere there exists a universe in which slashdot posters actually get laid!
No. It might seem so at first sight, but this possibility is cancelled out by destructive interference between nerd strings around 42-dimensional black holes.
Works fine here (Germany), too (after enabling all necessary scripts and cross-host requests).
Note that the string theoretic multiverse is not the same as the Everett multiverse. The two are not mutually exclusive (i.e. it could even be that we live in a "double-multiverse") but they are conceptually different. The string theoretic multiverse consists of universes which have different laws of physics, and which develop independent of each other. The Everett multiverse OTOH consists of worlds (universes) which follow the same laws of physics, and even share the same past up to some point. It's just that at random events the worlds split, and in each world that event had another result.
I have Tourettes Syndrome (srsly), and have a habit of randomly clicking my mouse buttons on empty areas of the screen while reading. Let's see you read into THAT, bitches!
You are obviously very interested in white space. Expect empty pages to get top rank in your searches!
Actually, the mass changes, but the unit changes, too, so the mass would still be 1kg, but nevertheless less. Basically what we have is a mass inflation:
Just as a dollar today doesn't represent the same value as the dollar 50 years ago, so does the kilogram today represent the same mass as it did 50 years ago.