Consider, A person who is literally incapable of considering an evil action. The good actions they perform then are the result of the person's limited capability rather than any intrinsic Goodness within. There is no volition behind doing only good.
Only if your working definitions of "good" and "evil" are totalitarian (that is to say, if there exist no acts or inactions that are neither good nor evil) can you claim that mere lack of evil actions is always "good".
the person incapable of evil could just sit around on the couch all day - there's nothing evil about that - so we shouldn't give him credit for going and doing good in the world?
send up a few tanks of nitrogen and you can have the machine's moving parts operating in a pressurized environment - the dust problems are absolutely inherent to the challenge, since the process by definition operates on the dust itself.
as for the power, why not put three or four power stations along the lunar equator, run some power lines, and maintain just enough batteries to ride out the occasional rare eclipse?
the hydrogen's getting recycled - follow the arrows, it's being output as water (the main reaction's other outputs don't contain hydrogen), and then the electrolysis chamber has two outputs, the other of which is oxygen.
"Copyright infringement" should be reserved for cases such as when I make a video game that stars Mario or Pokemon, infringing upon Nintendo's copyright.
No, it shouldn't - because that would be a case of trademark infringement, not copyright infringement, unless you used Nintendo's actual artwork or level layouts.
Actually, there is a copyright in a character for as long as the original work the character appeared in is under copyright - there's a reason disney cares so much about keeping a five-minute silent black-and-white film under copyright.
A virus scanner detects the files being loaded, not run - you would have had to click through warnings to actually run the "virus" but the scanner detects it as soon as it hits the cache.
Even if the copyright holder wants something more, he/she/they is/are unlikely to get it, because proving that you caused financial damage is going to be very hard given that the software typically costs nothing.
No punitive damages for copyright violation?
How about claiming you intended to charge $1000 per-seat for non-gpl licensing deals
even worse: in theory, in any district-based system [in US case, states as electoral district], someone can win with only barely more than 25% of the popular vote in a two-party system, 1/6 of the vote in a three-party system, 1/8 in a four-party system, etc. [it's slightly worse in the US because of the bias given to smaller states]
trademark law can't be violated by inclusion of the character buried deep within a work without so much as being mentioned on the cover.
trademark protections don't work the same way as copyright protections. if you _say_ you're not representing or approved by disney, they can't claim you're "confusingly similar" since there is no source of confusion to consumers.
sorry - the problem was that since your post was a response to mine i thought at least part of its content might be intended to respond to what i said
anyway - i never said that the problem was insurmountable - just that whenever it does happen, until OOo overtakes MS, OOo will be blamed, and it will take away [slightly] from its reputation.
GAH! the original post, that i was responding to, said:
Sure, sometimes an OOo document looks like crap in MS Office, but sometimes and MS Office document looks like crap in OOo.
you then said i was wrong because i was talking about the issue mentioned in that post rather than some other issue you would rather talk about. my point was [and, no, it's not fair] that to win, OOo has to be perfect. any screw-up in either direction will be blamed on it.
Slashdot Mirror
and then just rant about how evil society is for forcing you to interfere by putting such a heavy social penalty on those who don't try at all
RTFA - it uses a mesh network
Trouble fitting 1000 vehicles into a (RTFS) 30-mile radius?
Manhattan island doesn't even _have_ a 30-mile radius. It doesn't even have a 30-mile diameter. Not even if you measure it the long way.
Consider, A person who is literally incapable of considering an evil action. The good actions they perform then are the result of the person's limited capability rather than any intrinsic Goodness within. There is no volition behind doing only good.
Only if your working definitions of "good" and "evil" are totalitarian (that is to say, if there exist no acts or inactions that are neither good nor evil) can you claim that mere lack of evil actions is always "good".
the person incapable of evil could just sit around on the couch all day - there's nothing evil about that - so we shouldn't give him credit for going and doing good in the world?
if it must be obeyed, it should be free for all to read regardless of who wrote it.
eh? jesus is the force AND the force is a tool of satan? wtf
In what universe are city codes not law?
send up a few tanks of nitrogen and you can have the machine's moving parts operating in a pressurized environment - the dust problems are absolutely inherent to the challenge, since the process by definition operates on the dust itself.
as for the power, why not put three or four power stations along the lunar equator, run some power lines, and maintain just enough batteries to ride out the occasional rare eclipse?
the hydrogen's getting recycled - follow the arrows, it's being output as water (the main reaction's other outputs don't contain hydrogen), and then the electrolysis chamber has two outputs, the other of which is oxygen.
"Copyright infringement" should be reserved for cases such as when I make a video game that stars Mario or Pokemon, infringing upon Nintendo's copyright.
No, it shouldn't - because that would be a case of trademark infringement, not copyright infringement, unless you used Nintendo's actual artwork or level layouts.
Actually, there is a copyright in a character for as long as the original work the character appeared in is under copyright - there's a reason disney cares so much about keeping a five-minute silent black-and-white film under copyright.
A virus scanner detects the files being loaded, not run - you would have had to click through warnings to actually run the "virus" but the scanner detects it as soon as it hits the cache.
Even if the copyright holder wants something more, he/she/they is/are unlikely to get it, because proving that you caused financial damage is going to be very hard given that the software typically costs nothing.
No punitive damages for copyright violation?
How about claiming you intended to charge $1000 per-seat for non-gpl licensing deals
even worse: in theory, in any district-based system [in US case, states as electoral district], someone can win with only barely more than 25% of the popular vote in a two-party system, 1/6 of the vote in a three-party system, 1/8 in a four-party system, etc. [it's slightly worse in the US because of the bias given to smaller states]
Will teaching them Office 2005 really help them any more with using Office 2020 than teaching them OpenOffice will?
I look at current versions of office vs the WinWord2 I grew up on, and see more difference than between modern MS and modern OOo.
and "making things work" isn't a contribution? how much money do they make when stuff isn't working?
As long as we're amending the constitution to require laws to have expiration dates, let's also require each law to be about only one thing
they'd just set the expiration to January 19th 2038 3:14:07
vent hole? hard drives are sealed to not let dust in - there are no holes.
I didn't know that it was possible to be awarded the opposing lawyers' assets in a lawsuit.
you can disclaim "some form of collusion with Disney that they may have authorized", and they can't accuse you of implying it.
and if you're not using it in trade [it being a trademark], all bets are off
trademark law can't be violated by inclusion of the character buried deep within a work without so much as being mentioned on the cover.
trademark protections don't work the same way as copyright protections. if you _say_ you're not representing or approved by disney, they can't claim you're "confusingly similar" since there is no source of confusion to consumers.
sorry - the problem was that since your post was a response to mine i thought at least part of its content might be intended to respond to what i said
anyway - i never said that the problem was insurmountable - just that whenever it does happen, until OOo overtakes MS, OOo will be blamed, and it will take away [slightly] from its reputation.
how about you go ask on alt.usage.english the difference between an emerging new usage and simply making shit up
GAH! the original post, that i was responding to, said:
Sure, sometimes an OOo document looks like crap in MS Office, but sometimes and MS Office document looks like crap in OOo.
you then said i was wrong because i was talking about the issue mentioned in that post rather than some other issue you would rather talk about. my point was [and, no, it's not fair] that to win, OOo has to be perfect. any screw-up in either direction will be blamed on it.
there was a definite gold tinge to them - without which they would have just been ID4/borg/whatever.