Well, what was actually patented, as far as I can tell, was the process for making grain dough flakes using a rest step and rollers, not the flakes themselves. If someone wanted to use the same ingredients and a different process they could make all the corn flakes they want. Well thay would have to call them something else since "Corn Flakes" was trademarked. Hmmm, maybe we could call them "Elijah's Manna".
Well, maybe things have changed in the last 30 years, but assembly was a low level human readable language. You typed it into a file, or punched it on cards, and it was then used as input to a program called an assembler which turned it into machine code. The machine code file was not the same as the assembly code file.
Whoops, sorry for misspelling extravagant. Boy, that one slipped right past me. A lot of jokes do that to. You know what I mean? Sometimes there's this joke, and I just don't seem to get it.
How do you figure? Perl doesn't have an intermediate step that has assembly code, and neither does Ruby. Compiled languages go from their language to machine code, once again, no assembly. Now, with a disassembler you can turn machine code into asm, but it's usually pretty ugly.
Ok. Here is how it works. The merchant has a contract, called acceptance rules, that they sign with their bank. You have a contract with the bank that issues your credit card. The banks have contracts with the credit card company. In all of these contracts they spell out what proctices are acceptable and who is responsible for any problems. If someone commits fraud with your card, they can be arrested and prosecuted for that, but you will be held to the contract you signed, just like the merchant, and if the contract says signiture, and you do something else, even if you notify the issuing bank, the lawyers won't care. You can write "see ID" on the card, and that has as much legal authority as the signs on the dump trucks that say "keep back 200 yards". Doesn't mean a thing.
Microsoft got in trouble because the integrated their browser and media player into the operating system. If they would simply have had a browser and media player on your Windows install CD that you could install, or not, there wouldn't have been nearly the ruckus. What they did was make the install of the items required, and made it impossible for the average user to remove them without crippling the operating enviroment.
Operating system virtualization on the other hand pretty much requires it be hooked into th OS by its very nature.
Faraday cloth, a mesh woven from copper wire(usually), is pretty cheap and you can drape it over most anything. There are even companies that sell baseball caps with farady cloth liners. No need for tin foil anymore.:)
Well, then I truly hope this goes all the way to the Supreme Court. I am very interested if this law, and the executive orders in the federal register that codify section b, somehow are exempt from the first amendment. If sections b-f are found valid then that means that all of the parodies on SNL and in Mad Magazine are illegal, and the actors, producers,prop makers, and cameramen can get 6 months. The creation of any picture that contains the likeness of the President at the podium would be illegal for use in anything that wasn't a presidential library archive or bona fide news article. You couldn't even take one for personal use to show your friends, legally.
p.s. I know it hasn't progressed past the CaD paperwork level yet, but one can hope.
See, there's another government lie. It's been proven that when you join the government you must have your funny bone surgically removed. That's why it's on that high tech surgery training simulator from Milton Bradly.
But it doesn't fail the resonableness test in section (a). Here is the text.
, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Anyone who knows what The Onion is can not resonably be expected to believe that the use is meant to convey sponsorship or approval of its use by the government.
You sir, have rendered me speechless. I am at a total loss of words as to how to respond to this.
Hold on, I've got it. We need to outlaw comedy. Then the stupid people will be safe from being taken advantage of by the funny people in the world.
No! We need more that that. We must have a constitutional amendment banning anything that could be misinterpreted! We'll start a grass roots movement. We'll call it DUMBUP (Don't Use More Big Ugly Phrases). Our tag line can be ", but think about the morons." We will get universities outlawed so there won't be any more literature and rhetoric majors to say things that make our heads hurt!
Power to the Sheeple! Fight the brains! Dumb power!
But, for it to be satirical for that moron, he would have to say NICE things about them. That wouldn't bother me at all. That said, even if it was for his asinine and hateful reasons, it should be protected. The first amendment is supposed to protect political speech, and not just the speech you or I like. Even the village idiot gets a voice.
You don't have to listen.
You don't have to like it.
You do have to allow it.
Well, it's that or just use the U.S. Constitution for toilet paper since it's of no value if you can cherry pick why, when, and how you apply it.
But reverend Phelps doesn't make satirical send ups of religios leaders, he spreads hate. The Onion on the other hand creates satirical articles, many of which are less than flattering to politicians. The politicians, being the small minded children they are, don't like being called doody heads in public, so they pull out the second most powerful playground phrase... "My lawyer can beat up your lawyer! Nanny, nanny, boo boo."
Hmm, the parent post is modded a troll, at least at the time of this comments creation. Obviously the mods still do not recognize satire, even when the article is about satire. Maybe if the mods read The Onion they may "get it", but then again, maybe not.
The value of the statement has nothing to do with the name attached to it. But the person should not fear having their name associated with the statement.
Slashdot Mirror
Shhh. You're giving him a headache. He's not used to thinking this much.
They threw saints out windows?!?!?
Well, what was actually patented, as far as I can tell, was the process for making grain dough flakes using a rest step and rollers, not the flakes themselves. If someone wanted to use the same ingredients and a different process they could make all the corn flakes they want. Well thay would have to call them something else since "Corn Flakes" was trademarked. Hmmm, maybe we could call them "Elijah's Manna".
Well, maybe things have changed in the last 30 years, but assembly was a low level human readable language. You typed it into a file, or punched it on cards, and it was then used as input to a program called an assembler which turned it into machine code. The machine code file was not the same as the assembly code file.
Whoops, sorry for misspelling extravagant. Boy, that one slipped right past me. A lot of jokes do that to. You know what I mean? Sometimes there's this joke, and I just don't seem to get it.
Hey, lawyers have gotta make an extravigant living too.
How do you figure? Perl doesn't have an intermediate step that has assembly code, and neither does Ruby. Compiled languages go from their language to machine code, once again, no assembly. Now, with a disassembler you can turn machine code into asm, but it's usually pretty ugly.
Ok. Here is how it works. The merchant has a contract, called acceptance rules, that they sign with their bank. You have a contract with the bank that issues your credit card. The banks have contracts with the credit card company. In all of these contracts they spell out what proctices are acceptable and who is responsible for any problems. If someone commits fraud with your card, they can be arrested and prosecuted for that, but you will be held to the contract you signed, just like the merchant, and if the contract says signiture, and you do something else, even if you notify the issuing bank, the lawyers won't care. You can write "see ID" on the card, and that has as much legal authority as the signs on the dump trucks that say "keep back 200 yards". Doesn't mean a thing.
My first guess would be that you are not a citizen/resident of the U.S. then.
Already am. I like a lot of things that Google does, but I don't like them keeping data on everything I do with their sites.
Which is what I said.
No, he's not. I swear to you. Now, put down the cliche, and back away slowly.
Microsoft got in trouble because the integrated their browser and media player into the operating system. If they would simply have had a browser and media player on your Windows install CD that you could install, or not, there wouldn't have been nearly the ruckus. What they did was make the install of the items required, and made it impossible for the average user to remove them without crippling the operating enviroment.
Operating system virtualization on the other hand pretty much requires it be hooked into th OS by its very nature.
Well, at least SOMEONE is trying to keep Cingular from doing evil. That's a swell thing, right?
Faraday cloth, a mesh woven from copper wire(usually), is pretty cheap and you can drape it over most anything. There are even companies that sell baseball caps with farady cloth liners. No need for tin foil anymore. :)
Well, then I truly hope this goes all the way to the Supreme Court. I am very interested if this law, and the executive orders in the federal register that codify section b, somehow are exempt from the first amendment. If sections b-f are found valid then that means that all of the parodies on SNL and in Mad Magazine are illegal, and the actors, producers,prop makers, and cameramen can get 6 months. The creation of any picture that contains the likeness of the President at the podium would be illegal for use in anything that wasn't a presidential library archive or bona fide news article. You couldn't even take one for personal use to show your friends, legally.
p.s. I know it hasn't progressed past the CaD paperwork level yet, but one can hope.
See, there's another government lie. It's been proven that when you join the government you must have your funny bone surgically removed. That's why it's on that high tech surgery training simulator from Milton Bradly.
But it doesn't fail the resonableness test in section (a). Here is the text.
, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Anyone who knows what The Onion is can not resonably be expected to believe that the use is meant to convey sponsorship or approval of its use by the government.
But they aren't violating that law. There is a test for the application of the law, and The Onion article passes it.
You sir, have rendered me speechless. I am at a total loss of words as to how to respond to this.
Hold on, I've got it. We need to outlaw comedy. Then the stupid people will be safe from being taken advantage of by the funny people in the world.
No! We need more that that. We must have a constitutional amendment banning anything that could be misinterpreted! We'll start a grass roots movement. We'll call it DUMBUP (Don't Use More Big Ugly Phrases). Our tag line can be ", but think about the morons." We will get universities outlawed so there won't be any more literature and rhetoric majors to say things that make our heads hurt!
Power to the Sheeple! Fight the brains! Dumb power!
But, for it to be satirical for that moron, he would have to say NICE things about them. That wouldn't bother me at all. That said, even if it was for his asinine and hateful reasons, it should be protected. The first amendment is supposed to protect political speech, and not just the speech you or I like. Even the village idiot gets a voice.
You don't have to listen.
You don't have to like it.
You do have to allow it.
Well, it's that or just use the U.S. Constitution for toilet paper since it's of no value if you can cherry pick why, when, and how you apply it.
But reverend Phelps doesn't make satirical send ups of religios leaders, he spreads hate. The Onion on the other hand creates satirical articles, many of which are less than flattering to politicians. The politicians, being the small minded children they are, don't like being called doody heads in public, so they pull out the second most powerful playground phrase... "My lawyer can beat up your lawyer! Nanny, nanny, boo boo."
Hmm, the parent post is modded a troll, at least at the time of this comments creation. Obviously the mods still do not recognize satire, even when the article is about satire. Maybe if the mods read The Onion they may "get it", but then again, maybe not.
Hey, those trees making the oxygen you're breathing are growing on MY land. My trees made your air. Pay up!
The value of the statement has nothing to do with the name attached to it. But the person should not fear having their name associated with the statement.