In many cases, a finished product will have parts that are patented or copyrighted. Gnu's gcc leaves copyrighted code in the runtime, and that (and glibc) come with special licenses that make it legal to use gcc and glibc to create non-GPLed software.
There's also the claim that Disney knowingly and illegally used Rearden technology to profit, and may not profit further from the illegal action until the situation is resolved. That's actually pretty standard.
The USPTO has granted software patents that look awful general to me, although the courts have been stomping on that to some extent. Rearden is claiming that Disney illegally infringed on their patents in the production of three (and perhaps more) movies. Presumably they have some way to show that, and the court will decide.
Right. I don't think the theory of evolution does much with it either. A theory or model will cover certain things and not other.
Last I remember it couldn't even explain why neutrinos have mass.
Neutrinos change type over distance, which means that they aren't going at C (if they were, it would always be "now", and there would be no time for any change to occur). They do have momentum. Hence, they have mass. If you're looking for why any part of the Standard Model has the value it does, we don't know. What we know is that it makes extremely accurate predictions of what we observe.
Hypothesis: Government investigators want to talk to certain individuals about crimes they likely witnessed. To this end, they get a subpoena to get the identities of the probable witnesses, after which they will talk to them as part of the investigation. Note that this is not any sort of power creep, as the government has always had the power to subpoena information relevant to a criminal investigation.
Hypothesis: Government, for some strange reason, wants to eliminate or discredit Glassdoor, and tries to do so by serving a subpoena to get the identities of eight commenters, presumably thinking that this will discourage people from leaving comments on Glassdoor.
Pick the one that looks the simplest, has the least dubious constructions, and is overall the likeliest.
The protections do apply online. What they do not apply to, and have never applied to, is legitimate law enforcement officers serving a subpoena they obtained from a judge. Journalists have often dealt with this by contempt of court and serving jail time to protect sources, but that isn't a trivial thing to do.
Law enforcement has always had the right to bring in possible witnesses to illegal acts and talk to them. The courts have always had the power to get information. The privacy concerns are normally about what people can do without judicial oversight and the need for a warrant, and don't apply here.
I have an iPhone for convenience, so I can do things without having to research anything. If there's one app that drains my battery while not force-quit, it's easier for me to put everything on force-quit rather than figure out what I can and can't leave in the background. If there was one app, it's easier to leave it as it is rather than to change back and re-test.
Quitting doesn't seem to mess anything up. The iPhone is fast enough to bring back what I was doing in any case, and even if it drains the battery a touch to quit for good it seems to give me good enough life anyway.
This has nothing to do with the hours worked, but with the scheduling. If everyone worked 8-5 with noon-1 off for lunch, there'd be the exact same problem of no time to shop.
IIRC, corporate income taxes are paid on profits. (This deliberately doesn't include corporate property taxes and the like, which are a cost of having such things as fire and police protection, and which are collected locally.)
This means that corporations don't pay income tax on payroll, since profit is what's left after expenses like payroll. Passing costs on to the customer is impossible here, since if the company could make more money by raising prices they would have. The price point that maximizes profit also maximizes profit*0.60. Profit is what goes to the shareholders, in the form of dividends or increased value of the company, and so if you were going to tax individuals you'd have to tax shareholders. Of course, many shareholders aren't individuals, but rather mutual funds and other companies. Taxing the ultimate recipients gets difficult.
There's nothing evil or deceptive about corporate income tax. It's a tax on corporate income, which obviously means on direct and indirect shareholders.
My US citizenship is useful when I'm in the US. It isn't very useful when I'm not. Moreover, I can't adopt a new country without that country's permission.
US banks do lend money in that way. There has to be a certain amount of reserve, so a certain quantity of money can't support an infinite number of loans.. Deposit more in US accounts and there's more money to lend in the US.
Do you really think a second rate nation like Russia, with a huge indefensible border and ringed by hostile NATO bases, would be starting shit if they weren't backed into a corner?
Yes. Foreign adventurism is an old Russian technique for distracting Russians from what their leaders are doing.
You apparently have admitted that the administration is sleazeballs, and are now trying to justify them by claiming that it could be worse. More people now disapprove of Trump than ever disapproved of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Busy, Clinton, Bush, or Obama, so it's unclear how it's supposed to be worse.
I'm dealing in facts here. A C program can trivially be converted to a C++ program that means the same thing. Most C compilers nowadays are C++ compilers with a few differences. C++ can easily be as fast as C.
C++ also comes with some features that make it a lot harder to write certain categories of bad code when applied. Range-checking comes with a small price, but std::unique_ptr really doesn't.
What language you use is your decision, and it's reasonable for us to differ, but C++ was designed to be fast. Stroustrup wrote that a fast construct can be made safer, but a safe construct cannot be made faster.
I don't think that's the objection. I think people are saying creators should focus their efforts on the actual quality of their creation instead of which sex plays what within their creation.
,p>
I don't see that. I see people complaining because the Doctor is going to be female, with no words spent on arguing that any given male actor would be better than the upcoming one. I saw people complaining about the all-female Ghostbusters on the basis that the fictional Ghostbusters were male. The first two Ghostbuster movies certainly didn't shy away from cheap laughs (although the second was far less successful), and gender-swapping is in line with that.
I think it significant that so many people claim that the new Doctor is selected specifically because she's female, and dismiss the possibility that she may be the right actor for the job.
Slashdot Mirror
By the same reasoning, the extra cost to buy a Mac is well worth it for everyone, because it has features other computers don't have.
The plaintiffs still aren't getting their cut. That's continuing harm.
In many cases, a finished product will have parts that are patented or copyrighted. Gnu's gcc leaves copyrighted code in the runtime, and that (and glibc) come with special licenses that make it legal to use gcc and glibc to create non-GPLed software.
There's also the claim that Disney knowingly and illegally used Rearden technology to profit, and may not profit further from the illegal action until the situation is resolved. That's actually pretty standard.
Courts have upheld software patents, so they are legal. Rearden claims copyright and trademark infringement also.
The USPTO has granted software patents that look awful general to me, although the courts have been stomping on that to some extent. Rearden is claiming that Disney illegally infringed on their patents in the production of three (and perhaps more) movies. Presumably they have some way to show that, and the court will decide.
If I pay for Amazon Prime, then each thing I buy must get to me in two days and must not cost me extra money per sale to do so.
Only one polysyllabic word in the sentence, and that's a proper noun. Clear enough now?
availability of information. Information asymmetry, which is what you're advocating, makes free markets worse.
Right. I don't think the theory of evolution does much with it either. A theory or model will cover certain things and not other.
Neutrinos change type over distance, which means that they aren't going at C (if they were, it would always be "now", and there would be no time for any change to occur). They do have momentum. Hence, they have mass. If you're looking for why any part of the Standard Model has the value it does, we don't know. What we know is that it makes extremely accurate predictions of what we observe.
Aren't the gluons part of the protons?
Let's look at possible hypotheses.
Hypothesis: Government investigators want to talk to certain individuals about crimes they likely witnessed. To this end, they get a subpoena to get the identities of the probable witnesses, after which they will talk to them as part of the investigation. Note that this is not any sort of power creep, as the government has always had the power to subpoena information relevant to a criminal investigation.
Hypothesis: Government, for some strange reason, wants to eliminate or discredit Glassdoor, and tries to do so by serving a subpoena to get the identities of eight commenters, presumably thinking that this will discourage people from leaving comments on Glassdoor.
Pick the one that looks the simplest, has the least dubious constructions, and is overall the likeliest.
From what the article says, this isn't a deposition. Federal agents want to talk to possible witnesses. That can be done without revealing identities.
The protections do apply online. What they do not apply to, and have never applied to, is legitimate law enforcement officers serving a subpoena they obtained from a judge. Journalists have often dealt with this by contempt of court and serving jail time to protect sources, but that isn't a trivial thing to do.
Law enforcement has always had the right to bring in possible witnesses to illegal acts and talk to them. The courts have always had the power to get information. The privacy concerns are normally about what people can do without judicial oversight and the need for a warrant, and don't apply here.
I have an iPhone for convenience, so I can do things without having to research anything. If there's one app that drains my battery while not force-quit, it's easier for me to put everything on force-quit rather than figure out what I can and can't leave in the background. If there was one app, it's easier to leave it as it is rather than to change back and re-test.
Quitting doesn't seem to mess anything up. The iPhone is fast enough to bring back what I was doing in any case, and even if it drains the battery a touch to quit for good it seems to give me good enough life anyway.
This has nothing to do with the hours worked, but with the scheduling. If everyone worked 8-5 with noon-1 off for lunch, there'd be the exact same problem of no time to shop.
As a shareholder, I generally approve of product development. I don't require the maximum possible dividend now so much as continued growth.
IIRC, corporate income taxes are paid on profits. (This deliberately doesn't include corporate property taxes and the like, which are a cost of having such things as fire and police protection, and which are collected locally.)
This means that corporations don't pay income tax on payroll, since profit is what's left after expenses like payroll. Passing costs on to the customer is impossible here, since if the company could make more money by raising prices they would have. The price point that maximizes profit also maximizes profit*0.60. Profit is what goes to the shareholders, in the form of dividends or increased value of the company, and so if you were going to tax individuals you'd have to tax shareholders. Of course, many shareholders aren't individuals, but rather mutual funds and other companies. Taxing the ultimate recipients gets difficult.
There's nothing evil or deceptive about corporate income tax. It's a tax on corporate income, which obviously means on direct and indirect shareholders.
My US citizenship is useful when I'm in the US. It isn't very useful when I'm not. Moreover, I can't adopt a new country without that country's permission.
In business, Trump started at third base and has repeatedly congratulated himself on hitting a triple. He did not pull himself up by his bootstraps.
US banks do lend money in that way. There has to be a certain amount of reserve, so a certain quantity of money can't support an infinite number of loans.. Deposit more in US accounts and there's more money to lend in the US.
Yeah, but you're bringing up actual reasons instead of referring to a book with stupid philosophy in it.
Yes. Foreign adventurism is an old Russian technique for distracting Russians from what their leaders are doing.
You won. Get over it.
You apparently have admitted that the administration is sleazeballs, and are now trying to justify them by claiming that it could be worse. More people now disapprove of Trump than ever disapproved of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Busy, Clinton, Bush, or Obama, so it's unclear how it's supposed to be worse.
I'm dealing in facts here. A C program can trivially be converted to a C++ program that means the same thing. Most C compilers nowadays are C++ compilers with a few differences. C++ can easily be as fast as C.
C++ also comes with some features that make it a lot harder to write certain categories of bad code when applied. Range-checking comes with a small price, but std::unique_ptr really doesn't.
What language you use is your decision, and it's reasonable for us to differ, but C++ was designed to be fast. Stroustrup wrote that a fast construct can be made safer, but a safe construct cannot be made faster.
I think it significant that so many people claim that the new Doctor is selected specifically because she's female, and dismiss the possibility that she may be the right actor for the job.