1. Sell the project he's already been told will grow his stock options the fastest.
2. Obfuscate political factors that would inspire you to get a better job with better pay elsewhere.
3. Badger, wheedle, cajole, or guilt you into overcommitting yourself because that looks so much better on his Gantt charts.
4. Praise his own accomplishments while belittling the misguided, lame efforts of his competitors.
Thankfully it's been a long time since I've been around of those managers, but they do leave an impression on you.
Bean isn't suing to own your screen. Bean is suing companies that use Bean's name for profit -- their own. Bean's competitor's have contracted with Gator to make Bean's name result in a competitor's site appearing. It isn't the fact that the customer is looking at a parka that makes Bean's competitor's popup; it's the fact that Bean's trademarked name/website was used. To me this smells of pure trademark infringement.
We already agree that cybersquatting is illegal. If I bought the attwireless.com domain and made it redirect to cingular.com, I'd get my ass sued off and rightly so. But what Bean's competitor's are doing through Gator -- does this amount to the same thing? That is the question, and one might well be persuaded the answer is "yes".
A typical reason for having a root canal in the first place is that the tooth has in fact already cracked due to age, stress, and/or disease. The restoration after the root canal reinforces the tooth against further damage, but more caries can always work against that.
You can remove this but than the tooth starts turning black.
What a load of rubbish. The pulp is the only "living" part of the tooth. Removing it (root canal) does not leave behind anything that suffers for lack of nutrition. Dentin is not a living tissue and has no nutritional needs.
All that they tested was the fire control system and the targeting lasers. The big bad boy laser itself hasn't fire a shot yet. That will come in an integration test later this year.
what happens if Frame Dragging isn't observed
on
'Einstein Probe' Delayed
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I've read that frame dragging had already been reported in astronomical observations, and that this is expected to be an important but unsurprising laboratory confirmation of the phenomenon.
2(b)(v) "You didn't outright lie to us about what you said about yourself in the original purchase agreement."
2(b)(viii) "You didn't omit any material fact that would make what you say about yourself misleading. You also haven't withheld from the public information you are required to disclose by law."
3(g) "You won't provide non-public information to us after the press release."
Actually it failed because of a terrible name choice by the marketing droids. What, did they consider "Black Eye" and "Green Thumb" before finally settling on "Blue Tooth"?
They should have chosen a really cool name like...umm..."Linspire".
don't seem to be urgent to get companies to label bread and pasta in the same fashion
You're talking about acrylamide, and if you had really read about it you'd know that it is a by-product of the cooking process and not a original component of starch-based foods.
Is it even safe to change expected stoplight patterns, especially for drivers in a hurry?
The question presumes an answer to the question of whether it safe to flout posted speed limits just because you are running late, michael.
Karma be damned...I *want* to stop morons who think blowing by at +25 MPH relative to other traffic when the urge strikes is their god-given right. Bring it on, please!
While I agree completely with your sentiment, it's not quite so simple.
In this case we have a company attempting to profit from what is in essence a "pre-edited" version of a feature film. True, ClearPlay is not redistributing content (despite what one is left to infer from michael's typically flamebait post). True, consumers are choosing or not choosing to use the service. But by taking "fast forward" to the pre-programmed extreme, and by attempting to profit on the results, ClearPlay is in a legal gray area. Suppose I invented a player that colorized old black and white films -- would that not be considered a device that creates derivative works? You bet.
Still, I think they are in the clear. You still have to rent the original, unedited film to use their service. And the purpose of the device is neither artistic nor to create new works but to allow consumers to hear/view only the portions they choose to see of a work (where they delegate the details of the choice to a third party of their choosing). So I don't think this will be a problem.
Anyway it is amusing to see the staunchly free-speech crowd, who clearly would never choose such a product themselves, so quick to censor the free choice of consumers who would. There's censoring for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Apostrophe s
makes possessive, not plural
except it's (it is).
1. Sell the project he's already been told will grow his stock options the fastest.
2. Obfuscate political factors that would inspire you to get a better job with better pay elsewhere.
3. Badger, wheedle, cajole, or guilt you into overcommitting yourself because that looks so much better on his Gantt charts.
4. Praise his own accomplishments while belittling the misguided, lame efforts of his competitors.
Thankfully it's been a long time since I've been around of those managers, but they do leave an impression on you.
SCO's lovin' it!
Sheesh, even the horse looks embarassed to have its picture taken next to him.
ARRRRG. "Elmer Fudd" appears in your post, and the voice reading it in my mind irrevocably turns into that!
You weawee bwew it.
Bean isn't suing to own your screen. Bean is suing companies that use Bean's name for profit -- their own. Bean's competitor's have contracted with Gator to make Bean's name result in a competitor's site appearing. It isn't the fact that the customer is looking at a parka that makes Bean's competitor's popup; it's the fact that Bean's trademarked name/website was used. To me this smells of pure trademark infringement.
We already agree that cybersquatting is illegal. If I bought the attwireless.com domain and made it redirect to cingular.com, I'd get my ass sued off and rightly so. But what Bean's competitor's are doing through Gator -- does this amount to the same thing? That is the question, and one might well be persuaded the answer is "yes".
Very interesting. I wasn't aware of dentinal tubules so thank you for this informative reply. Here is more information:
The tubules are devoid of nerve tissue except for very short extensions.
The nerve cell bodies reside in the pulp.
Over time the pulp may lay down ... reparative dentin.
A typical reason for having a root canal in the first place is that the tooth has in fact already cracked due to age, stress, and/or disease. The restoration after the root canal reinforces the tooth against further damage, but more caries can always work against that.
You can remove this but than the tooth starts turning black.
What a load of rubbish. The pulp is the only "living" part of the tooth. Removing it (root canal) does not leave behind anything that suffers for lack of nutrition. Dentin is not a living tissue and has no nutritional needs.
Let me know if they also find my ISO shares from 2000.
You're new here. There is a fine line bewteen an editor and a troll.
If you think Moral Relativism is bad, try Moral Absolutism.Wormtongue = Darl McBride
All that they tested was the fire control system and the targeting lasers. The big bad boy laser itself hasn't fire a shot yet. That will come in an integration test later this year.
City auctions event parking spaces on ebay.
I've read that frame dragging had already been reported in astronomical observations, and that this is expected to be an important but unsurprising laboratory confirmation of the phenomenon.
A less flippant summary:
2(b)(v) "You didn't outright lie to us about what you said about yourself in the original purchase agreement."
2(b)(viii) "You didn't omit any material fact that would make what you say about yourself misleading. You also haven't withheld from the public information you are required to disclose by law."
3(g) "You won't provide non-public information to us after the press release."
Not that I don't find yours more entertaining.
MOD PARENT UP -- informative!
Bluetooth is cooler than ForkBeard.
Thanks.
Actually it failed because of a terrible name choice by the marketing droids. What, did they consider "Black Eye" and "Green Thumb" before finally settling on "Blue Tooth"?
They should have chosen a really cool name like...umm..."Linspire".
1. It's not a privacy issue. You're in a public place.
2. It's not a fair use issue. By buying the ticket you've agreed to not to use a camcorder in the theatre.
3. Michael can't resist posting flaimbait.
If you were harvesting krill, which would you rather use? A couple of big nets or 1024 penguins?
You're talking about acrylamide, and if you had really read about it you'd know that it is a by-product of the cooking process and not a original component of starch-based foods.
Sorry, the Microsoft logo is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation.
Redlights don't cause accidents. Mindless motorists do.
The question presumes an answer to the question of whether it safe to flout posted speed limits just because you are running late, michael.
Karma be damned...I *want* to stop morons who think blowing by at +25 MPH relative to other traffic when the urge strikes is their god-given right. Bring it on, please!
While I agree completely with your sentiment, it's not quite so simple.
In this case we have a company attempting to profit from what is in essence a "pre-edited" version of a feature film. True, ClearPlay is not redistributing content (despite what one is left to infer from michael's typically flamebait post). True, consumers are choosing or not choosing to use the service. But by taking "fast forward" to the pre-programmed extreme, and by attempting to profit on the results, ClearPlay is in a legal gray area. Suppose I invented a player that colorized old black and white films -- would that not be considered a device that creates derivative works? You bet.
Still, I think they are in the clear. You still have to rent the original, unedited film to use their service. And the purpose of the device is neither artistic nor to create new works but to allow consumers to hear/view only the portions they choose to see of a work (where they delegate the details of the choice to a third party of their choosing). So I don't think this will be a problem.
Anyway it is amusing to see the staunchly free-speech crowd, who clearly would never choose such a product themselves, so quick to censor the free choice of consumers who would. There's censoring for you.