Yeah, I find it amusing when people talk about using enterprise networking gear when they've had legislatively-mandated backdoors installed for many years.
(Not that the hardware isn't better, just not for that particular reason)
Well, on the plus side it'll provide lots of interesting functional (and cheap) materials for those of us who tinker. After the case is destroyed to replace the battery, they're still usable in other applications.
The use of the term "overture" in the context of that sentence isn't incorrect, excepting if your disagreement is over the assumption regarding the intent behind Google's actions rather than as disagreement on technical correctness.
In my case, I do host my own email, and (without getting deeply into the reasons why) a stand-alone client allows for moving and syncing mail across multiple accounts. Rather than doing a mass forward which screws up the dating and place in a message thread, I just move the original thread to another account in its entirety. I could probably write a script to search and move them remotely, but I don't know enough about the file formats and have no other reason to delve into the issue.
I like the cloud capabilities for syncing and remotely accessing messages, but I also want the ability to have and use a local copy of all those messages.
I should also add that, the singular usage of the term "basic right" reinforces the impression of the a singular freedom being discussed, rather than an entire class of rights with respect to a new medium.
The nice thing about Slashdot is its users frequently end up providing good reminders of where more clarity is needed and where it is not.
It's unfortunate you didn't log in to be snarky (you should always be willing to stand behind your snark), so the clarification of context reply went elsewhere.
Unfortunately, the term "freedom" in the modern context usually means "freedom to use or access," and not "freedom of expression."
The use of the title was acceptable in the article itself, because the difference was made clear. In the context of the Slashdot summary, where most people don't seem to bother with the article, the meaning is not at all likely to come across accurately.
In large part, those differences have little to do with how stratified wealth allocation is. Some of the poorest nations on Earth have wealth stratification which is vaguely similar to that of the US (or other countries), and little comparisons in quality of life can be drawn between them. The major factors lay entirely elsewhere in regard to quality of life. That may change somewhat as the median income goes up, but then you're usually talking about competing 1st World* problems vs competing 3rd World* problems.
*I use those terms in the modern sense, as opposed to the original Cold War sense.
There aren't really any non-niche replacement options for ThunderBird or Outlook since Eudora was killed by Qualcomm. I've tried several of the better ones, and they're universally painful to use.
It's actually unfortunate that there's not a binary compiled version of RoundCube, because it has a reasonably usable interface for a web client.
Yet another horrible headline. The resolution doesn't declare the Internet a basic right, it declares that the Internet isn't exempt from the protection of basic rights. Not even close to the same thing, though it doesn't surprise me that Soulskill apparently couldn't tell the difference.
Overachieving isn't guaranteed to get you a high ranking. It's a political game, much like popularity in a high school. It's not about how well you perform, it's about who you know.
That's a very interesting amalgam of implications. It makes me wonder how you actually personally define a number of the terms you use.
Are you ranting about conservatives and those who want society to provide them with everything, or are you implying they are one and the same? If the latter, I believe you'd be hard-pressed to make a substantive case that your typical conservative politician is any different from your typical progressive politician in the quantity of other peoples' money they would like to see freely distributed for their political priorities. Both groups have a long history of dispensing with the checks and balances of the political process to advance their agendas, then crying when their opponents do the same.
I'm also guessing that the inclusion of Rand's name is to imply the entire rant is about libertarians, ignoring completely that libertarianism also includes non-intervention in the personal sphere regarding things like drug use and gay marriage; not exactly conservative views.
The world of political corruption knows no "right" or "left," and that is the true enemy of a decent society. One key tool used by those who are corrupt is the promotion of partisanship, which is well-known for its effect of limiting or removing the ability to engage in rational analysis. Demonizing the people one disagrees with using misrepresentation or outright lies is a typical symptom of partisanship. It can be difficult to sort through the lies in this day and age, but help is out there if you wish to give up the addiction of partisanship.
I can think of dozens of larger hypocrites, most of whom, in addition to being hypocrites, have also contributed little or nothing to the advancement of society, literature, philosophy, or science.
Actually, he did a great deal to oppose slavery for someone living in Virginia society. Many of the very specific pressures faced and exactly why he decided to act in the ways he did will never be known. At the end of the day, he was at the very forefront of the socially progressive part of Southern society.
Usually, those bringing up the slave trade are doing so as a means to discredit parts of his ideas they do not like. Usually, this is without regard to whether slavery has any bearing on those ideas, but even where they do so, being a hypocrite does not alter whether an abstract idea is fundamentally worthwhile or not.
Amusingly enough, OEIS confirms the other replies. The only way it actually responds with your sequence is if you enter 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 49, which presupposes the answer to the GP's question was "49." If you put in the GP's sequence, it responds with the GP's answer of "36."
That's a bit of pedantry which, upon even cursory examination, is functionally and legally untrue.
It is quite true that someone technically owns everything owned by that group, but not everything done by that group. Property is passed through, but even unincorporated companies do possess some forms of limited liability. Perhaps you're defining "unincorporated" as "not a legal fiction," whereas there are actually several legal fictions you can create which are not incorporated companies.
For the purposes of operating a commercial entity with multiple actors using property, an unincorporated company is still a company. For the purposes of economic and property liability, the owner does not have the limited liability inherent in a corporate company, and their liability in fact can extend to other property they own which is not in direct use by the company.
Unfortunately, it's not a flaw of capitalism as much as it is a flaw in every socioeconomic structure Man has ever attempted.
Even the Marxist systems ended up with the wealth consolidated at the top. Europe is the same way, as is Asia, Africa, and South America, and Central America. The difference is in how the dressings of society are framed, not in where the majority of the wealth is concentrated.
All it adds is that the unlock path may be one of multiple options. So, instead of a straight line, like a door bolt, it might be L-shaped like a rifle bolt or whatnot.
Actually, the patent text says almost exactly what you claim it doesn't, as the addition of the word "portal" is an attempt at deflection which adds nothing functional to the rebuttal. Slide locks have implementations which secure numerous things, of which portals are but a single example.
You slide the graphical representation of something along a software-defined and graphically-displayed route and the device unlocks once the graphical object contacts the defined unlock region.
The bolt was an example of a physical item for which the slide-unlock, as it is currently implemented, is an exact digital representation.
If you wish to be pedantic, a typical bolt would not infringe the claim (leaving aside the touchscreen in place of a physical object aspect), but a spring-loaded bolt would. One would require continuous contact with the bolt in releasing the lock, or it would reset.
If the touchscreen is what differentiates the claim, then all digital analogues to physical manipulation are open to being patented. If that's the case, our views on what constitute legitimate patents are hopelessly at odds, so further discussion would be pointless.
Slashdot Mirror
The Moses/Jobs and Mt Sinai/Cupertino parallels did flash through my head as I read this summary.
Yeah, I find it amusing when people talk about using enterprise networking gear when they've had legislatively-mandated backdoors installed for many years.
(Not that the hardware isn't better, just not for that particular reason)
Yes and no. In some cases, glue is most certainly a part of proper engineering.
Anyone who says otherwise knows nothing about the history of fine woodworking, among other things.
Well, on the plus side it'll provide lots of interesting functional (and cheap) materials for those of us who tinker. After the case is destroyed to replace the battery, they're still usable in other applications.
The use of the term "overture" in the context of that sentence isn't incorrect, excepting if your disagreement is over the assumption regarding the intent behind Google's actions rather than as disagreement on technical correctness.
"Overture" is not a strictly musical term.
In my case, I do host my own email, and (without getting deeply into the reasons why) a stand-alone client allows for moving and syncing mail across multiple accounts. Rather than doing a mass forward which screws up the dating and place in a message thread, I just move the original thread to another account in its entirety. I could probably write a script to search and move them remotely, but I don't know enough about the file formats and have no other reason to delve into the issue.
I like the cloud capabilities for syncing and remotely accessing messages, but I also want the ability to have and use a local copy of all those messages.
I should also add that, the singular usage of the term "basic right" reinforces the impression of the a singular freedom being discussed, rather than an entire class of rights with respect to a new medium.
The nice thing about Slashdot is its users frequently end up providing good reminders of where more clarity is needed and where it is not.
It's unfortunate you didn't log in to be snarky (you should always be willing to stand behind your snark), so the clarification of context reply went elsewhere.
Unfortunately, the term "freedom" in the modern context usually means "freedom to use or access," and not "freedom of expression."
The use of the title was acceptable in the article itself, because the difference was made clear. In the context of the Slashdot summary, where most people don't seem to bother with the article, the meaning is not at all likely to come across accurately.
Also, the quiet overachiever on a team of overachievers still gets a 2.0 in a forced ranking system.
The quiet overachiever only gets rewarded if their team lead goes to bat for them, because nobody else even knows their name.
As I said, the dressings of society.
In large part, those differences have little to do with how stratified wealth allocation is. Some of the poorest nations on Earth have wealth stratification which is vaguely similar to that of the US (or other countries), and little comparisons in quality of life can be drawn between them. The major factors lay entirely elsewhere in regard to quality of life. That may change somewhat as the median income goes up, but then you're usually talking about competing 1st World* problems vs competing 3rd World* problems.
*I use those terms in the modern sense, as opposed to the original Cold War sense.
There aren't really any non-niche replacement options for ThunderBird or Outlook since Eudora was killed by Qualcomm. I've tried several of the better ones, and they're universally painful to use.
It's actually unfortunate that there's not a binary compiled version of RoundCube, because it has a reasonably usable interface for a web client.
Yet another horrible headline. The resolution doesn't declare the Internet a basic right, it declares that the Internet isn't exempt from the protection of basic rights. Not even close to the same thing, though it doesn't surprise me that Soulskill apparently couldn't tell the difference.
Overachieving isn't guaranteed to get you a high ranking. It's a political game, much like popularity in a high school. It's not about how well you perform, it's about who you know.
That's a very interesting amalgam of implications. It makes me wonder how you actually personally define a number of the terms you use.
Are you ranting about conservatives and those who want society to provide them with everything, or are you implying they are one and the same? If the latter, I believe you'd be hard-pressed to make a substantive case that your typical conservative politician is any different from your typical progressive politician in the quantity of other peoples' money they would like to see freely distributed for their political priorities. Both groups have a long history of dispensing with the checks and balances of the political process to advance their agendas, then crying when their opponents do the same.
I'm also guessing that the inclusion of Rand's name is to imply the entire rant is about libertarians, ignoring completely that libertarianism also includes non-intervention in the personal sphere regarding things like drug use and gay marriage; not exactly conservative views.
The world of political corruption knows no "right" or "left," and that is the true enemy of a decent society. One key tool used by those who are corrupt is the promotion of partisanship, which is well-known for its effect of limiting or removing the ability to engage in rational analysis. Demonizing the people one disagrees with using misrepresentation or outright lies is a typical symptom of partisanship. It can be difficult to sort through the lies in this day and age, but help is out there if you wish to give up the addiction of partisanship.
I can think of dozens of larger hypocrites, most of whom, in addition to being hypocrites, have also contributed little or nothing to the advancement of society, literature, philosophy, or science.
I'll take him as a hypocrite and day of the week.
Minor nitpick; freed 4. Two of his children by her did not survive to adulthood.
Actually, he did a great deal to oppose slavery for someone living in Virginia society. Many of the very specific pressures faced and exactly why he decided to act in the ways he did will never be known. At the end of the day, he was at the very forefront of the socially progressive part of Southern society.
Usually, those bringing up the slave trade are doing so as a means to discredit parts of his ideas they do not like. Usually, this is without regard to whether slavery has any bearing on those ideas, but even where they do so, being a hypocrite does not alter whether an abstract idea is fundamentally worthwhile or not.
Amusingly enough, OEIS confirms the other replies. The only way it actually responds with your sequence is if you enter 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 49, which presupposes the answer to the GP's question was "49." If you put in the GP's sequence, it responds with the GP's answer of "36."
That's a bit of pedantry which, upon even cursory examination, is functionally and legally untrue.
It is quite true that someone technically owns everything owned by that group, but not everything done by that group. Property is passed through, but even unincorporated companies do possess some forms of limited liability. Perhaps you're defining "unincorporated" as "not a legal fiction," whereas there are actually several legal fictions you can create which are not incorporated companies.
For the purposes of operating a commercial entity with multiple actors using property, an unincorporated company is still a company. For the purposes of economic and property liability, the owner does not have the limited liability inherent in a corporate company, and their liability in fact can extend to other property they own which is not in direct use by the company.
Unfortunately, it's not a flaw of capitalism as much as it is a flaw in every socioeconomic structure Man has ever attempted.
Even the Marxist systems ended up with the wealth consolidated at the top. Europe is the same way, as is Asia, Africa, and South America, and Central America. The difference is in how the dressings of society are framed, not in where the majority of the wealth is concentrated.
All it adds is that the unlock path may be one of multiple options. So, instead of a straight line, like a door bolt, it might be L-shaped like a rifle bolt or whatnot.
Actually, the patent text says almost exactly what you claim it doesn't, as the addition of the word "portal" is an attempt at deflection which adds nothing functional to the rebuttal. Slide locks have implementations which secure numerous things, of which portals are but a single example.
You slide the graphical representation of something along a software-defined and graphically-displayed route and the device unlocks once the graphical object contacts the defined unlock region.
The bolt was an example of a physical item for which the slide-unlock, as it is currently implemented, is an exact digital representation.
If you wish to be pedantic, a typical bolt would not infringe the claim (leaving aside the touchscreen in place of a physical object aspect), but a spring-loaded bolt would. One would require continuous contact with the bolt in releasing the lock, or it would reset.
If the touchscreen is what differentiates the claim, then all digital analogues to physical manipulation are open to being patented. If that's the case, our views on what constitute legitimate patents are hopelessly at odds, so further discussion would be pointless.
http://xkcd.com/936/ fails.
No, this is not a judgment on my part, just an exact translation of what the GP said.