The way the young'uns name their kids today it stands to reason that geezers picking their grandkids name and adding their birthday makes a reasonably strong (i.e. not detected as kinda crappy by computer analysis) password. In short, I'm with you on the wealth of obscure-ish information, but I'm not sure how many would actually stand up to real analysis.
Again, the store should have a return policy to reflect it, if it was true. The stores that don't, however, clearly see enough benefit to keep the things as is.
Stop the fucking insinuations, dear sir. The ethics are simple: you don't break the law, the store doesn't break the law. The rest is up to the person, that is what you personally are comfortable with and what I personally am comfortable (and for the record, oh dear and most respected holier than though, high horse riding, insult slinging knight in polished silver armor, I personally avoid returns as much as possible, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand besides keeping you focused on it) with doesn't figure into what should be.
It's pretty simple, the store wants to advertise a huge safety net that most people won't use, the store makes more profit by keeping their promise as it stands rather than adding a million disclaimers, therefore the store willingly puts up with all of the return ("ab")use. Trying to discourage returns on the basis of crappy packaging instead of changing the policy is what would be unethical. That's it. They don't have to do it this way and there is absolutely no need to rush to their defense.
Well, yes, more or less. End-user filtering that resulted in ad networks censoring the advertisers in turn increasing the self-censorship for many of them (some had it already, some moved to more sleazy networks). This would indicate that all three can, in certain circumstances, lead to positive results.
You heard it here first folks, small theaters have no outstanding actors. Ever.
If the money was more evenly distributed across the actor pool I suspect you'd see more top actors, but that doesn't sell movies on actor names alone, so...
No, gentlemen, the return policy allows it and the store's have made few, if any efforts to curb returns of heavily used items. Whether or not that is to be considered encouragement I didn't weight in on, so please refrain from implying that I have.
How about ad networks that are not completely composed of blinking, flashing, loud, attention grabbing shit? Advertisers would flood them with it, ad networks self-censor to avoid the worst of it. On the side of content tagged for filtering we have/. moderation system, among other things.
More importantly: massively out-coordinated. Even if you happen to somehow put together a sizable force (no modern autocracy worth its salt will lack a comprehensive surveillance network, and I don't mean that they have subverted your naive attempts at technological privacy, they will have the manpower on the ground and in your middle), it will not be a highly cohesive force across the board and will simply be chopped apart and dealt with an a lower level. Military uprising works when you have power struggles between existing groups, creating a group under a half competent authoritarian government is something else entirely.
You are confused about copyleft, the whole point there is to foster code sharing (turning the normal use of copyright in proprietary software on its head). What you want (as far as I can figure) is a license that only lets freeware use your code, the only one that comes close I'm aware of would be a CC-BY-NC. If that doesn't work you'd likely have to write your own as most people don't consider it a useful tool. You will not manage to avoid both public domain and copyright restricted, it's either free of restrictions (whether legally in the public domain or effectively through lack of enforcement) or it's copyright protected in some form.
You need to correct for your biased sample. For every destroyed return there likely was at least one customer who couldn't face you with a shredded package.
Yes, lets see what the invest of $1000 in diverse/stable enough markets to not lose it would yield in 2 years compared to a 'depreciating entertainment device'. One of those is likely to make you feel worse about yourself.
The medium of exchange is not for wealth storage. Buy whatever commodities you like, just don't try to inflate them by using them as an exchange medium and don't try to extract wealth from the economy by simple savings. See, that didn't even require changing anything buy your persecutive!
I hear many people live in countries they describe as tyrannical, they identify as libertarians and advocate people voting with their feet. Then they stay.
You don't want a license which forces special conditions but not one that forces special conditions? You need to ponder this a bit more, particularly since even the BSD won't cut it, it forces special conditions like requiring code added to files to be under the same license when the source is distributed and attribution.
Slashdot Mirror
The way the young'uns name their kids today it stands to reason that geezers picking their grandkids name and adding their birthday makes a reasonably strong (i.e. not detected as kinda crappy by computer analysis) password. In short, I'm with you on the wealth of obscure-ish information, but I'm not sure how many would actually stand up to real analysis.
Again, the store should have a return policy to reflect it, if it was true. The stores that don't, however, clearly see enough benefit to keep the things as is.
Stop the fucking insinuations, dear sir. The ethics are simple: you don't break the law, the store doesn't break the law. The rest is up to the person, that is what you personally are comfortable with and what I personally am comfortable (and for the record, oh dear and most respected holier than though, high horse riding, insult slinging knight in polished silver armor, I personally avoid returns as much as possible, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand besides keeping you focused on it) with doesn't figure into what should be.
It's pretty simple, the store wants to advertise a huge safety net that most people won't use, the store makes more profit by keeping their promise as it stands rather than adding a million disclaimers, therefore the store willingly puts up with all of the return ("ab")use. Trying to discourage returns on the basis of crappy packaging instead of changing the policy is what would be unethical. That's it. They don't have to do it this way and there is absolutely no need to rush to their defense.
Fair enough, that is however not due to a lack of offline licensed maps.
Well, yes, more or less. End-user filtering that resulted in ad networks censoring the advertisers in turn increasing the self-censorship for many of them (some had it already, some moved to more sleazy networks). This would indicate that all three can, in certain circumstances, lead to positive results.
You heard it here first folks, small theaters have no outstanding actors. Ever.
If the money was more evenly distributed across the actor pool I suspect you'd see more top actors, but that doesn't sell movies on actor names alone, so...
No, gentlemen, the return policy allows it and the store's have made few, if any efforts to curb returns of heavily used items. Whether or not that is to be considered encouragement I didn't weight in on, so please refrain from implying that I have.
Lacking a legend I can honestly say that it's not clear in any of the cases what is what.
Get an Android phone. Get OSMand. News for posers who won't lift a finger? Stuff that has been solved for you if you just look?
Funny, but not exactly what you'd get with a normal search.
How about ad networks that are not completely composed of blinking, flashing, loud, attention grabbing shit? Advertisers would flood them with it, ad networks self-censor to avoid the worst of it. On the side of content tagged for filtering we have /. moderation system, among other things.
More importantly: massively out-coordinated. Even if you happen to somehow put together a sizable force (no modern autocracy worth its salt will lack a comprehensive surveillance network, and I don't mean that they have subverted your naive attempts at technological privacy, they will have the manpower on the ground and in your middle), it will not be a highly cohesive force across the board and will simply be chopped apart and dealt with an a lower level. Military uprising works when you have power struggles between existing groups, creating a group under a half competent authoritarian government is something else entirely.
What if you cut yourself on the package itself?
I think a single clamshell on the dominant hand would be more appropriate. Bonus points if you put some scissors or a knife into that hand.
There is only one that applies: Walmart has a return policy that allows this. They could change it, but it drives business, so they don't.
You are confused about copyleft, the whole point there is to foster code sharing (turning the normal use of copyright in proprietary software on its head). What you want (as far as I can figure) is a license that only lets freeware use your code, the only one that comes close I'm aware of would be a CC-BY-NC. If that doesn't work you'd likely have to write your own as most people don't consider it a useful tool. You will not manage to avoid both public domain and copyright restricted, it's either free of restrictions (whether legally in the public domain or effectively through lack of enforcement) or it's copyright protected in some form.
You need to correct for your biased sample. For every destroyed return there likely was at least one customer who couldn't face you with a shredded package.
Maybe they could solve the return 'problem' by having a return policy they actually are willing to stand behind sans tricks?
Sounds more like GP is confused by the customary units...
Yes, lets see what the invest of $1000 in diverse/stable enough markets to not lose it would yield in 2 years compared to a 'depreciating entertainment device'. One of those is likely to make you feel worse about yourself.
The medium of exchange is not for wealth storage. Buy whatever commodities you like, just don't try to inflate them by using them as an exchange medium and don't try to extract wealth from the economy by simple savings. See, that didn't even require changing anything buy your persecutive!
I hear many people live in countries they describe as tyrannical, they identify as libertarians and advocate people voting with their feet. Then they stay.
You don't want a license which forces special conditions but not one that forces special conditions? You need to ponder this a bit more, particularly since even the BSD won't cut it, it forces special conditions like requiring code added to files to be under the same license when the source is distributed and attribution.
You'd think that also means that there is no reason not to release the damn source code.
Shouldn't have violated the damn copyright than. Facing the copyright infringement lawsuit is always an option if you have a problem with the "sway".
So your argument is that you can't grasp that analogies don't require the actions in question to be of equal magnitude?