IT professionals use the escape key and ethernet jack every day.
I would wager that most IT professionals only use the ethernet port when at their own desk, so any adapter can stay on the desk or attached to a dock. I have a MacBook Air with no ethernet jack and I don't carry a USB-to-ethernet adapter with me. I honestly don't miss it.
I agree with you about the escape key, though. I use that on my MacBook Air at least once a minute while using vim. I guess I could remap caps lock to escape, but my muscle memory won't like that.
Now hang on just a sec there. Not all of these are good counter-examples of pregnancies resulting from abstinence.
Marduk
Marduk had two parents, Ea and Daminka. He had an interesting birth, but was conceived in the standard way (for gods, anyway).
Buddha
Siddhrtha Gautama's father was uddhodana. Again, he had an interesting birth according to some narratives, but apart from some very late legends, there's essentially no suggestion that he was conceived in an unusual way.
Qi
Qi was the son of Yu the Great, surely?
Lao-Tse
Yeah... no. A small number of very late legends. The vast majority of Taoist schools of thought hold that he was a normal guy conceived and born the usual way.
Abaoji
I'll grant you this one, although the legends vary wildly.
Jesus
I'll also grant you this one, even though it's obviously based on a mistranslation from Hebrew into Greek.
Horus
OK, if you are an Egyptian deity, having sex with your dead husband's unprotected dismembered phallus is not an effective birth control method. But in what possible mythological scenario does that count as "abstinence"?
Mithra, Mithras
Huh? Mithra/Mithras wasn't born as the result of a pregnancy, but emerged fully-formed from a rock.
Krishna
I'll grant you this one.
Huitzilopochtli, Quetzalcoatl, Alan Gua, Momotaro and Deganawida
Class action legal firms will sometimes take these cases on a "no win, no pay" basis if there are enough representatives in the class to make it worth their while. It's almost certainly not just her.
That's great. But to what extent does this go to? I've heard some extreme cases where if you use the libraries and only link the libraries, you have to make your code GPL.
The short version is that if you distribute a derivative work, that derivative work must be licensed under the same licence. The bit that you wrote may be licensed under any licence that you want (including dual-licensing) as long as the derivative work as a whole is licensed under the GPL.
What you're really asking is what exactly a "derivative work" is when it comes to software. The short answer is that nobody really knows where the line is drawn precisely (or if there is a precise line at all), and it probably differs between jurisdictions. This is not a problem that is unique to the GPL, or indeed to software.
If you're patching a codebase, the situation is reasonably clear. If you're "using" a library, that's much less clear. The FSF usually draws the line at linking, even dynamic linking, however they also argue that APIs are not copyrightable. US courts have typically said that a derivative work must incorporate some of the copyrighted work in some form. What if it's an optional plug-in? What if it's a C++ program and there's inline code in the header files? What if there's a proprietary library with an identical API? Interesting questions, none of which is entirely settled.
The flip side of this is to recognise that the only reason why these issues come up with the GPL and not commercial licences is that commercial licences impose additional restrictive terms which don't even let you get close to releasing derivative works. Unlike commercial licences/EULAs, the GPL merely grants you the rights you need to use, modify, and redistribute the software and does not take away any rights under the law that you previously had. So the question of exactly what rights you previously had is now relevant.
The study found that there is a segment of people who don't lie and don't escalate lies, but Sharot and Garrett weren't able to determine how rare those honest people are.
I want a watch which is my phone and data connection. I want to see basic comm functionality I can use - bluetooth for audio if need be - all the time.
The main issue is that any watch over $200 is expected to last 10-20+ years. A smart watch is designed to last 1-2 years.
Exactly.
I may well buy a smart watch one day. One necessary precondition is that it has to be cheap enough that I won't regret the purchase if it turns out to be useless.
Actually, when I think of point 9, I think of those terror plots which were created by the FBI, or USBP interior checkpoints, or the police buying military surplus gear.
No, you can't predict the weather on a given day months in advance (the limit is believed to be around 21 days) because the atmosphere is a chaotic system and small errors grow too large to make predictions useful.
Less than that if there's a volcanic or solar event.
Believe it or not, not everyone here is American. Never heard the lyrics you quoted, but I did work out (without looking them up) what they might refer to, and now I'm wondering what would have happened if Kent State had campus carry at the time.
Last time I checked we wouldn't be fighting against a modern, mechanized army. Not just because a large portion of said Army would walk out the day after being ordered to attack citizens, but the simple fact that their families would be EXTREMELY vulnerable to an irate, heavily armed portion of the population if they were break their oaths and turn on the citizens of the country. Most would just simply refuse to act rather than follow orders.
Honest question, because I don't know the answer: Did anyone refuse to act rather than follow the orders to round up American citizens and put them in internment camps, when it happened in the 1940s? Certainly "a large portion" did not, but I'm curious if it ever happened.
It seems to me that the assumption here is that the "citizens" that the military are ordered to oppress are nice white folks. That would never happen for the reasons that you state. But what if it was President Trump ordering the forced registration of all Muslim Americans?
I won't spoil it for you, but early in the industrial revolution a man with the lad name "Ludd" started a movement to try and halt the spread of mechanization via acts of sabotage.
The Luddites actually started as a mostly peaceful group demanding decent wages and safe working conditions. There is some dispute as to whether or not Ludd and the story of him smashing the knitting machine after a supervisor criticised his work are real. The group eventually did start sabotaging machines, but contrary to popular belief, they were not, and never were, anti-technology. It was just an industrial dispute that got nasty.
It's good to see someone understands this. It's unfortunate that many people will only apply this when it is in terms of liberals being able to disassociate from people on the right, but won't apply it to a baker or photographer who doesn't want to participate in a ceremony they believe to be sacrilegious.
I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, but I'm going to add two caveats.
First, companies are legal fictions, created through government regulation. They do not have the same rights that people do. In return for government benefits (e.g. limited liability), you agree to play by the government's rules.
Secondly, professionals are bound by professional ethics which may conflict with their personal rights to the point where the only solution may be to find a different job. So I have less of a problem with a sole trader photographer refusing to participate in a ceremony they disapprove of (which, I might add, could be as simple as saying "can't do it that day") than I do with a pharmacist refusing to dispense birth control.
And as always, freedom of speech and freedom of association does not imply freedom from consequences.
Since you addressed that to me, a clarification is in order: What "group" have you assigned me to? Is this like those suburbs of Chicago where you're assigned to a gang at puberty entirely by virtue of which block you live on?
I can't help but notice that "everything" doesn't encompass much.
I don't mean that hate symbols cause everything bad, merely that hate symbols have no redeeming features whatsoever. And by that I do not mean that people should be arrested for using them.
In another article on Slashdot, we have people boycotting a Silicon Valley business associated with a CEO who has dared to donate to Trump.
That's freedom of association and it's at least as fundamental a right as free speech. If that's how they choose to stand up for what they believe in, that's their business. You and I, in turn, may use this information to decide whom we want to associate with. I don't see the problem.
That's a crime. That is a problem. I hope whoever did it is caught and does hard time.
Don't you dare pin this all on the right.
More to the point, don't pretend that "the right" or "the left" is a heterogeneous mass. In both cases, we're talking about a loose association of different individuals and groups with different agendas, some of whom are extremists.
To paraphrase a friend of mine:
It's okay to be a conservative; some values are worth preserving and defending. It's okay to be a progressive; the times they are a-changing. It's okay to be a radical; sometimes the joint needs to be shaken up. It's okay to be all three, perhaps on different issues. But it's never okay to be a fundamentalist.
Slashdot Mirror
IT professionals use the escape key and ethernet jack every day.
I would wager that most IT professionals only use the ethernet port when at their own desk, so any adapter can stay on the desk or attached to a dock. I have a MacBook Air with no ethernet jack and I don't carry a USB-to-ethernet adapter with me. I honestly don't miss it.
I agree with you about the escape key, though. I use that on my MacBook Air at least once a minute while using vim. I guess I could remap caps lock to escape, but my muscle memory won't like that.
I think I can say with some confidence that I think more frequently than incidents like this happen.
Sadly that's not necessarily adequate.
Nice try, but this guy and his girlfriend were not actually abstinent.
[...] are sadly not as rare as you'd think.
Do you have some statistics on that?
Now hang on just a sec there. Not all of these are good counter-examples of pregnancies resulting from abstinence.
Marduk
Marduk had two parents, Ea and Daminka. He had an interesting birth, but was conceived in the standard way (for gods, anyway).
Buddha
Siddhrtha Gautama's father was uddhodana. Again, he had an interesting birth according to some narratives, but apart from some very late legends, there's essentially no suggestion that he was conceived in an unusual way.
Qi
Qi was the son of Yu the Great, surely?
Lao-Tse
Yeah... no. A small number of very late legends. The vast majority of Taoist schools of thought hold that he was a normal guy conceived and born the usual way.
Abaoji
I'll grant you this one, although the legends vary wildly.
Jesus
I'll also grant you this one, even though it's obviously based on a mistranslation from Hebrew into Greek.
Horus
OK, if you are an Egyptian deity, having sex with your dead husband's unprotected dismembered phallus is not an effective birth control method. But in what possible mythological scenario does that count as "abstinence"?
Mithra, Mithras
Huh? Mithra/Mithras wasn't born as the result of a pregnancy, but emerged fully-formed from a rock.
Krishna
I'll grant you this one.
Huitzilopochtli, Quetzalcoatl, Alan Gua, Momotaro and Deganawida
Don't know about those ones.
What about the lawyer fees?
Class action legal firms will sometimes take these cases on a "no win, no pay" basis if there are enough representatives in the class to make it worth their while. It's almost certainly not just her.
Errr... Linux is still licensed under the GPLv2.
That's great. But to what extent does this go to? I've heard some extreme cases where if you use the libraries and only link the libraries, you have to make your code GPL.
The short version is that if you distribute a derivative work, that derivative work must be licensed under the same licence. The bit that you wrote may be licensed under any licence that you want (including dual-licensing) as long as the derivative work as a whole is licensed under the GPL.
What you're really asking is what exactly a "derivative work" is when it comes to software. The short answer is that nobody really knows where the line is drawn precisely (or if there is a precise line at all), and it probably differs between jurisdictions. This is not a problem that is unique to the GPL, or indeed to software.
If you're patching a codebase, the situation is reasonably clear. If you're "using" a library, that's much less clear. The FSF usually draws the line at linking, even dynamic linking, however they also argue that APIs are not copyrightable. US courts have typically said that a derivative work must incorporate some of the copyrighted work in some form. What if it's an optional plug-in? What if it's a C++ program and there's inline code in the header files? What if there's a proprietary library with an identical API? Interesting questions, none of which is entirely settled.
The flip side of this is to recognise that the only reason why these issues come up with the GPL and not commercial licences is that commercial licences impose additional restrictive terms which don't even let you get close to releasing derivative works. Unlike commercial licences/EULAs, the GPL merely grants you the rights you need to use, modify, and redistribute the software and does not take away any rights under the law that you previously had. So the question of exactly what rights you previously had is now relevant.
Europe's concept of free speech is far more limited than the US version, so no1curr
...and on the other hand, Europe's concept of the election is much less corrupt.
you sad "oven watch"?
The lesser-known (and far more boring) Blizzard game, presumably.
Should have just asked them, obviously.
I want a watch which is my phone and data connection. I want to see basic comm functionality I can use - bluetooth for audio if need be - all the time.
Basically, you have a Dick Tracy fantasy.
The main issue is that any watch over $200 is expected to last 10-20+ years. A smart watch is designed to last 1-2 years.
Exactly.
I may well buy a smart watch one day. One necessary precondition is that it has to be cheap enough that I won't regret the purchase if it turns out to be useless.
they already have a phone...or a watch.
And smart wristwatches have no hipster cred value. Smart pocketwatches... now you're talking.
Oh, the other thing with point 3 is community policing.
Actually, when I think of point 9, I think of those terror plots which were created by the FBI, or USBP interior checkpoints, or the police buying military surplus gear.
Would you like the police to turn a blind eye to the crimes? Look at what happened in Baltimore when police stopped patrolling.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but perhaps rather than the either/or scenario, we could go back to first principles.
No, you can't predict the weather on a given day months in advance (the limit is believed to be around 21 days) because the atmosphere is a chaotic system and small errors grow too large to make predictions useful.
Less than that if there's a volcanic or solar event.
Did you inherit that user ID from your grandpa?
Believe it or not, not everyone here is American. Never heard the lyrics you quoted, but I did work out (without looking them up) what they might refer to, and now I'm wondering what would have happened if Kent State had campus carry at the time.
What am I to do? I guess the ADA won't cover me and my 2nd amendment rights.
Easy: Vote for the political party which supports both an affordable public health care system and liberal gun ownership.
Last time I checked we wouldn't be fighting against a modern, mechanized army. Not just because a large portion of said Army would walk out the day after being ordered to attack citizens, but the simple fact that their families would be EXTREMELY vulnerable to an irate, heavily armed portion of the population if they were break their oaths and turn on the citizens of the country. Most would just simply refuse to act rather than follow orders.
Honest question, because I don't know the answer: Did anyone refuse to act rather than follow the orders to round up American citizens and put them in internment camps, when it happened in the 1940s? Certainly "a large portion" did not, but I'm curious if it ever happened.
It seems to me that the assumption here is that the "citizens" that the military are ordered to oppress are nice white folks. That would never happen for the reasons that you state. But what if it was President Trump ordering the forced registration of all Muslim Americans?
I won't spoil it for you, but early in the industrial revolution a man with the lad name "Ludd" started a movement to try and halt the spread of mechanization via acts of sabotage.
The Luddites actually started as a mostly peaceful group demanding decent wages and safe working conditions. There is some dispute as to whether or not Ludd and the story of him smashing the knitting machine after a supervisor criticised his work are real. The group eventually did start sabotaging machines, but contrary to popular belief, they were not, and never were, anti-technology. It was just an industrial dispute that got nasty.
It's good to see someone understands this. It's unfortunate that many people will only apply this when it is in terms of liberals being able to disassociate from people on the right, but won't apply it to a baker or photographer who doesn't want to participate in a ceremony they believe to be sacrilegious.
I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, but I'm going to add two caveats.
First, companies are legal fictions, created through government regulation. They do not have the same rights that people do. In return for government benefits (e.g. limited liability), you agree to play by the government's rules.
Secondly, professionals are bound by professional ethics which may conflict with their personal rights to the point where the only solution may be to find a different job. So I have less of a problem with a sole trader photographer refusing to participate in a ceremony they disapprove of (which, I might add, could be as simple as saying "can't do it that day") than I do with a pharmacist refusing to dispense birth control.
And as always, freedom of speech and freedom of association does not imply freedom from consequences.
Except your group [...]
Since you addressed that to me, a clarification is in order: What "group" have you assigned me to? Is this like those suburbs of Chicago where you're assigned to a gang at puberty entirely by virtue of which block you live on?
I can't help but notice that "everything" doesn't encompass much.
I don't mean that hate symbols cause everything bad, merely that hate symbols have no redeeming features whatsoever. And by that I do not mean that people should be arrested for using them.
In another article on Slashdot, we have people boycotting a Silicon Valley business associated with a CEO who has dared to donate to Trump.
That's freedom of association and it's at least as fundamental a right as free speech. If that's how they choose to stand up for what they believe in, that's their business. You and I, in turn, may use this information to decide whom we want to associate with. I don't see the problem.
And we have a GOP office being firebombed just the other day.
That's a crime. That is a problem. I hope whoever did it is caught and does hard time.
Don't you dare pin this all on the right.
More to the point, don't pretend that "the right" or "the left" is a heterogeneous mass. In both cases, we're talking about a loose association of different individuals and groups with different agendas, some of whom are extremists.
To paraphrase a friend of mine:
It's okay to be a conservative; some values are worth preserving and defending. It's okay to be a progressive; the times they are a-changing. It's okay to be a radical; sometimes the joint needs to be shaken up. It's okay to be all three, perhaps on different issues. But it's never okay to be a fundamentalist.