Almost as dumb as calling your whisky "scotch", huh? Surely an American company should be allowed to sell cheap bourbon labelled "Scotch whiskey". They can put it on the same shelf in the liquor store as California champagne. How dare those finicky Europeans demand that we actually call things what they are?
If only there was some term like "classic rock" that could be used to speak of rock music with the longevity to be considered classic. Oh well, I'm sure yours will catch on.
So, I suppose you can consider yourself 'protecting' him, but I would say only if you were deployed.
Right, because if anyone's thinking of invading the US and actually directly threatening the people here, they're going to be deterred by all of the soldiers who are deployed elsewhere, and not the ones who are actually in the country. To be safest, we should send the entire military overseas; then people would really think twice about attacking us.
Is a soldier stationed in the US in nearly infinitely less danger of being killed by enemy fire than one in Iraq of Afghanistan? Sure. But that doesn't mean he's not protecting the country.
Right, because Bill Gates probably can't afford Tivo.
Re:No, remember this is slashdot. (OT: SIG)
on
Vista - iPod Killer?
·
· Score: 1
If you think you are loosing your rights, ask your self, has your life been altered since you lost them?
You misspelled "since you loosed them". Hope this helps. I can only assume you're going to blame Microsoft for this one, since despite President Bush's complete inability to pronounce most English words, I'm not aware of him having much effect on anyone's spelling. Even journalists directly quoting him don't write "nucular".
The iPhone isn't a smartphone only if you define "smartphone" as meaning "phone that runs Symbian". Symbian is doing great. It has 100% of the smartphone market.
I'm wondering if the people suing sold their Dell stock based on their reported income, and are now upset that Dell has "artificially inflated the stock price" through, umm, having that extra money?
There was a story on slashdot when they made the deal; unfortunately the linked press release isn't on Yahoo anymore, but it was probably some pretty good evidence while it was. Unless their own PR department is trying to frame them.
You misspelled "exclusively", since the comparison didn't even look at the other articles. Also, Wikipedia's articles had more errors, but "further analysis" done by Wikipedians (and not the authors of the peer-reviewed study in Nature) decided that this was because Wikipedia articles were longer, and that errors-per-word should be the standard.
Let us know when you get a faculty appointment to a university that won't mind a professor saying "sorry, I had to fail every one of my students this semester because your admissions department is incompetent and didn't limit themselves to the.5% of applicants who are so educated and mature that they don't really need college anyway. Can I have tenure now?"
Interesting that the profs contribute. Part of the reason why wikipedia is better than Brittanica.
Right, because Brittanica's contributors are all random 15-year-olds from the Internet. I think they actually exclude contributions from anyone they can prove has a tenure-track position anywhere, right?
If you think you know exactly how the PageRank algorithm works, you should really be making billions of dollars consulting with SEOs instead of posting on Slashdot.
Yes, but doesn't your second point assume that many of the earlier reexaminations weren't based on substantial reasons? I'm not sure this is common; I'd assume that reexaminations in general have such a high rate of overturning patents specifically because they're based on evidence similar to that seen here.
Brecqou is a very small island in the Channel Islands (Jersey, Guernsey etc. - Yes my American friends, that's where New Jersey comes from).
New Jersey used to be in the English Channel, and then French downwind from it couldn't stand the smell so they floated it over here and stuck it on our coast? That would explain a lot.
All physical objects and beings exist in nature. Therefore, anyone who wants to has an inalienable right to come to your house, kill you, and take everything you own.
All of the "policemen" who come and drag that person off to "court" and then to "prison" are merely a legal fiction.
Actually, one local court in Essex stated that it didn't have maritime jurisdiction, and the owners of Sealand managed to convince a lot of people that this meant that all courts in the UK agree that they have no jurisdiction over Sealand.
No, but people do have the right to control the copying of things for which they own the copyright (it's right there in the word. see it?)
Whether they'd have paid for it if they had no way to get it otherwise is irrelevant. They have the right not to watch/listen to the copyrighted materials.
Slashdot Mirror
Almost as dumb as calling your whisky "scotch", huh? Surely an American company should be allowed to sell cheap bourbon labelled "Scotch whiskey". They can put it on the same shelf in the liquor store as California champagne. How dare those finicky Europeans demand that we actually call things what they are?
If only there was some term like "classic rock" that could be used to speak of rock music with the longevity to be considered classic. Oh well, I'm sure yours will catch on.
I know I would be more accepting of commerce over the internet with convicted sex offenders if only they were registered.
So, I suppose you can consider yourself 'protecting' him, but I would say only if you were deployed.
Right, because if anyone's thinking of invading the US and actually directly threatening the people here, they're going to be deterred by all of the soldiers who are deployed elsewhere, and not the ones who are actually in the country. To be safest, we should send the entire military overseas; then people would really think twice about attacking us.
Is a soldier stationed in the US in nearly infinitely less danger of being killed by enemy fire than one in Iraq of Afghanistan? Sure. But that doesn't mean he's not protecting the country.
Yeah, it's a "good thing" to funnel more tax money into the pockets of corporations. Oh how we love our corporate welfare state.
Right, because Bill Gates probably can't afford Tivo.
If you think you are loosing your rights, ask your self, has your life been altered since you lost them?
You misspelled "since you loosed them". Hope this helps. I can only assume you're going to blame Microsoft for this one, since despite President Bush's complete inability to pronounce most English words, I'm not aware of him having much effect on anyone's spelling. Even journalists directly quoting him don't write "nucular".
The iPhone isn't a smartphone only if you define "smartphone" as meaning "phone that runs Symbian". Symbian is doing great. It has 100% of the smartphone market.
You don't home school your children to make sure they never hear about that horrible Liberal Myth of evolution?
I'm wondering if the people suing sold their Dell stock based on their reported income, and are now upset that Dell has "artificially inflated the stock price" through, umm, having that extra money?
There was a story on slashdot when they made the deal; unfortunately the linked press release isn't on Yahoo anymore, but it was probably some pretty good evidence while it was. Unless their own PR department is trying to frame them.
whoosh
Umm, that was sarcasm.
particularly in the science articles
You misspelled "exclusively", since the comparison didn't even look at the other articles. Also, Wikipedia's articles had more errors, but "further analysis" done by Wikipedians (and not the authors of the peer-reviewed study in Nature) decided that this was because Wikipedia articles were longer, and that errors-per-word should be the standard.
Would you also ban using your university's library because they refuse to carry my self-published book about my pet cat?
Let us know when you get a faculty appointment to a university that won't mind a professor saying "sorry, I had to fail every one of my students this semester because your admissions department is incompetent and didn't limit themselves to the .5% of applicants who are so educated and mature that they don't really need college anyway. Can I have tenure now?"
Interesting that the profs contribute. Part of the reason why wikipedia is better than Brittanica.
Right, because Brittanica's contributors are all random 15-year-olds from the Internet. I think they actually exclude contributions from anyone they can prove has a tenure-track position anywhere, right?
If you think you know exactly how the PageRank algorithm works, you should really be making billions of dollars consulting with SEOs instead of posting on Slashdot.
Yes, but doesn't your second point assume that many of the earlier reexaminations weren't based on substantial reasons? I'm not sure this is common; I'd assume that reexaminations in general have such a high rate of overturning patents specifically because they're based on evidence similar to that seen here.
Umm, I think it's at least partially the molester's fault.
Let me guess, if a kid gets shot at school, it's their parents' fault for not home schooling them in a panic room in the basement, too.
Who exactly were the Federalist Papers trying to get elected again?
Great, the entire internet community can rely on one random person's server instead of on one really big corporation's server. That should fix things.
Brecqou is a very small island in the Channel Islands (Jersey, Guernsey etc. - Yes my American friends, that's where New Jersey comes from).
New Jersey used to be in the English Channel, and then French downwind from it couldn't stand the smell so they floated it over here and stuck it on our coast? That would explain a lot.
All physical objects and beings exist in nature. Therefore, anyone who wants to has an inalienable right to come to your house, kill you, and take everything you own.
All of the "policemen" who come and drag that person off to "court" and then to "prison" are merely a legal fiction.
Actually, one local court in Essex stated that it didn't have maritime jurisdiction, and the owners of Sealand managed to convince a lot of people that this meant that all courts in the UK agree that they have no jurisdiction over Sealand.
No, but people do have the right to control the copying of things for which they own the copyright (it's right there in the word. see it?)
Whether they'd have paid for it if they had no way to get it otherwise is irrelevant. They have the right not to watch/listen to the copyrighted materials.