No, no! It actually means to not take into account something that has already not been taken into account. It's redundancy in action without actually acting on anything. Brilliant!
No, it's not required to put "TM" next to a trademark. While it might be harder to enforce trademark protection with some unregistered marks, the use of the primary identification component of a company's name is relatively easy (the relative word is the important one here, not the "easy") to defend. Usually unregistered trademarks are delineated by area of geographical influence. In this case, if Bing! IS wins their suit, Microsoft would be prevented from using the trademark within Bing! IS's area of geographical influence.
I hope they win, but doubt they will. If it comes down to it, I wouldn't be surprised to see a monetary settlement offer that results in them changing their name in exchange for a large sum of money.
Otherwise, every cable would have to be rated for the maximum 13 amps, even if it's only a lamp that needs maybe 0.25 amps.
No, you don't. If the draw is only 0.25A, you don't need a larger power cable in an un-fused line. It's not generally a good idea to have a larger power cable than necessary. It just means if you have a short in the appliance that the cord will burn out instead of delivering the maximum circuit amperage to the fixture. There's a good reason why you can buy appliance cable that ranges from 18AWG on up. Lines should always be sized for the current that is supposed to run through them. Anything else is a safety hazard or a waste of money and copper.
The CPSC has little to do with whether you use GFCI breakers or not. The IEEE develops standards published in the NEC, which is adopted by any city or state government that controls building standards.
The bedroom breakers are more expensive because they're AFCI. They trip not only when there is a ground fault but when there is an arc fault as well, since the vast majority of residential electrical fires start from an arc.
There are a number of services that are or can be activated by being texted a pin and entering it in to a website. Yes, most of the opt-ins are a result of sending an SMS to another number, but that is not the only way for it to happen.
Nothing in the story said that was the only criteria, just that he wanted information on colleges that were friendly to non-mainstream computing. Assuming from the story that his only requirement is a college being Linux friendly is completely asinine, so I'd still have to say you, rather than the author. It's not me that needs perspective, as yours seems to be pretty narrow.
If there are no schools in existence that support Linux, "tough shit" would be a valid response. Since the question is ultimately "Are there schools that support Linux?," the response really doesn't fit. If the answer to "Are there schools that support Linux?" is yes, the answer "tough shit" not only doesn't fit, but makes you an idiot as well.
They don't need more guns, jails, or judges. They just need to maintain the level of apathy among the population. It's a far easier task. Actually, it's far too easy a task.
Five year olds have parents who have wallets, and who are frequently willing to open said wallets in order to get said five year old to stop bugging the hell out of them for 5 minutes by buying "Advertised Item X."
Or you can carry 10 $50 coins in your pocket and not have to worry about the X-ray machines. I can't speak to the declaration requirements in other countries, but in the USA it's the face value of any legal tender and not the trade value. While the trade value of those 10 gold coins would be near the declaration limit, the face value is only $500.
I'd much prefer to carry 10 coins that won't set off an airport metal detector than 100 $100 paper bills. A coin tube is smaller and more easily concealable than 100 $100 bills. When you start talking about currency amounts greater than $10,000, the difference is even more extreme.
That sort of markup remains the province of extraordinarily small transactions. Anyone purchasing gold as a hedge or for other investment purposes isn't going to pay anywhere close to 30% markup. Only those who don't know any better are going to pay such an outrageous amount above spot, and I have no sympathy for those who don't bother to educate themselves.
The point of gold investment is that it holds a unique position by moving with inflation (at least since the unlinking of the dollar value with the value of gold). According to Ray Jastram's "The Golden Constant," the purchasing power of gold has remained relatively stable over the last 300 or so years. You can't say the same for any paper currency.
Unless you're paying ridiculous premiums for the gold you purchase, even if the value of it falls the purchasing power of it remains mostly unchanged.
I'm guessing wireless is even more popular in Australia than it is other places. That is the most profoundly ridiculous thing I've heard in quite a while.
Yes, you would still owe taxes on it. Having property confiscated by the police is not a legitimate tax write-off, and you occur the obligation as soon as you have control of the property. Not that it would really matter in most cases, since if you confiscate everything someone has, they're probably not going to ever pay off the tax debt. They can put you in prison for not reporting the income, but not for refusing or being unable to pay the debt.
Your average working-class John cannot afford to pay for the regulatory overhead (hehehe) and taxes that it would take to legalize it and turns to the street.
The German sex trade model disproves this so thoroughly that it's not worth arguing about.
Well, that's not really true. Introduction of foreign predators to combat foreign invaders can work quite well. It can work so well that the foreign predators kill off the foreign invaders and then start munching on domestic prey.
I'm not saying the end result is better, just that the stated goal can be reached. Totally agree that the unintended consequences can be worse than not doing anything at all. Though, they're not always all bad, as is the case when the introduction of another foreign species fails completely. Then there are no side effects, in addition to no primary effects (aside from cost).
Maybe I'm missing the joke, but seriously? There are hundreds of thousands of mediocre people willing to work a mediocre job. Government pay isn't exactly mediocre anyway, at least not when there is no competitive private sector equivalent. If there is a competitive private sector equivalent, the mediocre still go into government work, because they can't get into the competitive jobs.
While you make some goods points, it's interesting how your wording provides the perfect defense against a troll mod, which in many ways would be appropriate to apply to your post. You get to call people names, and if you actually were modded troll you can say, "See? I said the groupthinkers would attempt to quash my statement. Look how correct I must be."
The presentation of your ideas in such a blatantly manipulative way does much to undermine any weight carried by your opinions, at least among those who aren't already members of your particular brand of groupthink.
The entire US primary educational system trains students to focus on material that is on tests. It's not until college that people are likely to experience a grading scale that might weight something other than tests more importantly for passing a class. Until you reach upper division classes, the norm is still to pass based on test scores.
Modern testing techniques do not require critical thinking skills, though one can use critical thinking skills to pass tests without ever glancing at the topics being covered.
Until tests are no longer the backbone of a passing grade, the question "Will this be on the test?" will be the norm. A college degree doesn't mean you know anything, it's just the new (and really expensive) high school diploma. Without it, your application for anything other than a service industry or vocational job isn't likely to make it past the first round of cuts.
Try spending a month in a hospital with a potentially life-ending condition and then see if you feel the same way. You want nurses who can do both. It's not an either-or sort of thing. Without nurses on-staff with critical thinking skills, most hospitals would grind to a halt. With any sort of complex health issue, simply being able find the right section of the "manual" to follow can require critical thinking skills.
Having been involved with the communities of a couple community colleges and a couple of universities, I have to disagree. The people attending community colleges in general tend to be older and more focused on their actual education, whereas domestic university students more frequently fall into the "test better, but functionally incompetent" category.
Slashdot Mirror
No, no! It actually means to not take into account something that has already not been taken into account. It's redundancy in action without actually acting on anything. Brilliant!
ID. Bing! ID. I apparently am not to be trusted with remembering simple things from one moment to the next. Carry on!
No, it's not required to put "TM" next to a trademark. While it might be harder to enforce trademark protection with some unregistered marks, the use of the primary identification component of a company's name is relatively easy (the relative word is the important one here, not the "easy") to defend. Usually unregistered trademarks are delineated by area of geographical influence. In this case, if Bing! IS wins their suit, Microsoft would be prevented from using the trademark within Bing! IS's area of geographical influence.
I hope they win, but doubt they will. If it comes down to it, I wouldn't be surprised to see a monetary settlement offer that results in them changing their name in exchange for a large sum of money.
I heard William Shatner in my head saying these lines as I read them. You sir, are an insensitive clod!
At least they don't charge by the nibble anymore.
Since proper spelling and subject matter knowledge tend to be very relevant to legal discussions, no, not ad hominem much. Thanks for playing though.
Otherwise, every cable would have to be rated for the maximum 13 amps, even if it's only a lamp that needs maybe 0.25 amps.
No, you don't. If the draw is only 0.25A, you don't need a larger power cable in an un-fused line. It's not generally a good idea to have a larger power cable than necessary. It just means if you have a short in the appliance that the cord will burn out instead of delivering the maximum circuit amperage to the fixture. There's a good reason why you can buy appliance cable that ranges from 18AWG on up. Lines should always be sized for the current that is supposed to run through them. Anything else is a safety hazard or a waste of money and copper.
The CPSC has little to do with whether you use GFCI breakers or not. The IEEE develops standards published in the NEC, which is adopted by any city or state government that controls building standards.
The bedroom breakers are more expensive because they're AFCI. They trip not only when there is a ground fault but when there is an arc fault as well, since the vast majority of residential electrical fires start from an arc.
There are a number of services that are or can be activated by being texted a pin and entering it in to a website. Yes, most of the opt-ins are a result of sending an SMS to another number, but that is not the only way for it to happen.
Nothing in the story said that was the only criteria, just that he wanted information on colleges that were friendly to non-mainstream computing. Assuming from the story that his only requirement is a college being Linux friendly is completely asinine, so I'd still have to say you, rather than the author. It's not me that needs perspective, as yours seems to be pretty narrow.
If there are no schools in existence that support Linux, "tough shit" would be a valid response. Since the question is ultimately "Are there schools that support Linux?," the response really doesn't fit. If the answer to "Are there schools that support Linux?" is yes, the answer "tough shit" not only doesn't fit, but makes you an idiot as well.
They don't need more guns, jails, or judges. They just need to maintain the level of apathy among the population. It's a far easier task. Actually, it's far too easy a task.
Five year olds have parents who have wallets, and who are frequently willing to open said wallets in order to get said five year old to stop bugging the hell out of them for 5 minutes by buying "Advertised Item X."
<nitpick> :)
Except at the point in the system where the two do actually need to be bonded together.
</nitpick>
Or you can carry 10 $50 coins in your pocket and not have to worry about the X-ray machines. I can't speak to the declaration requirements in other countries, but in the USA it's the face value of any legal tender and not the trade value. While the trade value of those 10 gold coins would be near the declaration limit, the face value is only $500.
I'd much prefer to carry 10 coins that won't set off an airport metal detector than 100 $100 paper bills. A coin tube is smaller and more easily concealable than 100 $100 bills. When you start talking about currency amounts greater than $10,000, the difference is even more extreme.
That sort of markup remains the province of extraordinarily small transactions. Anyone purchasing gold as a hedge or for other investment purposes isn't going to pay anywhere close to 30% markup. Only those who don't know any better are going to pay such an outrageous amount above spot, and I have no sympathy for those who don't bother to educate themselves.
The point of gold investment is that it holds a unique position by moving with inflation (at least since the unlinking of the dollar value with the value of gold). According to Ray Jastram's "The Golden Constant," the purchasing power of gold has remained relatively stable over the last 300 or so years. You can't say the same for any paper currency.
Unless you're paying ridiculous premiums for the gold you purchase, even if the value of it falls the purchasing power of it remains mostly unchanged.
I'm guessing wireless is even more popular in Australia than it is other places. That is the most profoundly ridiculous thing I've heard in quite a while.
Yes, you would still owe taxes on it. Having property confiscated by the police is not a legitimate tax write-off, and you occur the obligation as soon as you have control of the property. Not that it would really matter in most cases, since if you confiscate everything someone has, they're probably not going to ever pay off the tax debt. They can put you in prison for not reporting the income, but not for refusing or being unable to pay the debt.
Your average working-class John cannot afford to pay for the regulatory overhead (hehehe) and taxes that it would take to legalize it and turns to the street.
The German sex trade model disproves this so thoroughly that it's not worth arguing about.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brothels-cut-prices-to-beat-the-recession-1674400.html
Well, that's not really true. Introduction of foreign predators to combat foreign invaders can work quite well. It can work so well that the foreign predators kill off the foreign invaders and then start munching on domestic prey.
I'm not saying the end result is better, just that the stated goal can be reached. Totally agree that the unintended consequences can be worse than not doing anything at all. Though, they're not always all bad, as is the case when the introduction of another foreign species fails completely. Then there are no side effects, in addition to no primary effects (aside from cost).
Maybe I'm missing the joke, but seriously? There are hundreds of thousands of mediocre people willing to work a mediocre job. Government pay isn't exactly mediocre anyway, at least not when there is no competitive private sector equivalent. If there is a competitive private sector equivalent, the mediocre still go into government work, because they can't get into the competitive jobs.
While you make some goods points, it's interesting how your wording provides the perfect defense against a troll mod, which in many ways would be appropriate to apply to your post. You get to call people names, and if you actually were modded troll you can say, "See? I said the groupthinkers would attempt to quash my statement. Look how correct I must be."
The presentation of your ideas in such a blatantly manipulative way does much to undermine any weight carried by your opinions, at least among those who aren't already members of your particular brand of groupthink.
The entire US primary educational system trains students to focus on material that is on tests. It's not until college that people are likely to experience a grading scale that might weight something other than tests more importantly for passing a class. Until you reach upper division classes, the norm is still to pass based on test scores.
Modern testing techniques do not require critical thinking skills, though one can use critical thinking skills to pass tests without ever glancing at the topics being covered.
Until tests are no longer the backbone of a passing grade, the question "Will this be on the test?" will be the norm. A college degree doesn't mean you know anything, it's just the new (and really expensive) high school diploma. Without it, your application for anything other than a service industry or vocational job isn't likely to make it past the first round of cuts.
Try spending a month in a hospital with a potentially life-ending condition and then see if you feel the same way. You want nurses who can do both. It's not an either-or sort of thing. Without nurses on-staff with critical thinking skills, most hospitals would grind to a halt. With any sort of complex health issue, simply being able find the right section of the "manual" to follow can require critical thinking skills.
Having been involved with the communities of a couple community colleges and a couple of universities, I have to disagree. The people attending community colleges in general tend to be older and more focused on their actual education, whereas domestic university students more frequently fall into the "test better, but functionally incompetent" category.