I take it you've never searched for something on Amazon. Worst search engine EVAR. Results will include completely random items. Sort by price and you'll get results ordered pretty much randomly (maybe the moving average increases somewhat).
I won't disagree with most of what you've said - it's just semantics.
However, even if one considers marriage a "right," nothing in Prop8 denies that right - whether hetero or homo, everyone still had the "right" to marry a person of the opposite sex. If that's some sort of infringement, is this "right" of marriage allowed to discriminate at all? Can a person marry a corporation, which have been found to have rights similar to individuals (Citizens United)? How about a member of another species?
The internationally agreed time standard (TAI or UTC, which are the same, only different) is based on an ensemble of clocks throughout the world. The contribution from NIST (and USNO) is only a part of the realization.
Because of this, actual time can only be known after the fact, because post-processing is needed.
Kilograms are units of mass, not weight ( that would be Newtons, which is a force).
Errors are not caused by "miscounting," but due to the fact that no physical realization can be perfect. The second is defined under the conditions of zero acceleration (i.e. no gravity) and at a temperature of absolute zero, neither of which are attainable in practice.
"He wanted to use political force to deny rights to people. So it's more then just an opinion."
You don't know what rights are. Marriage, and the governmental advantages associated with it (such as lower tax rates), is a privilege. Whether hetero or homo, there is no "right" for anyone to get married, or to have the state recognize that marriage.
Furthermore, he was supporting his own opinion, which was not only with the side of the majority, but was related to a right we do have, the right to vote. Would you support firing the over 50% of California voters who supported Prop 8? (That's rhetorical - of course you would, you've shown yourself to be an intolerant bigot)
Don't be so sure. Bunny was the guy behind the Chumby (and related Insignia Infocast and Sony Dash devices), which was mildly successful for a while (the hardware was relatively inexpensive, but the service costs were apparently unsustainable).
What consumer products constitute your bona fides?
But just the MB is $500 - there's not much done by hand on one of those. And it has 5-10 year old technology like USB 2.0 and SATA 2 (and it sounds like there's only a single one of those ports!).
The whole purpose of the patent system is to get inventors to publicize their inventions so they can be copied (after the patent term expires). Copying with greater efficiency benefits the consumer. You seem to imply that copying is bad, in and of itself. Do you only use Bayer aspirin? Do you avoid iPhones and iPads because they don't use Intel microprocessors?
Getting a patent is supposed to require coming up with something new and non-obvious - something many of Apple's patent claims lack. (e.g. pinch/spread to compress/zoom).
There's also the issue of Apple's apparent copying of a Samsung design when they created the iPad, which they disingenuously tried to claim in reverse.
Thanks for that, since neither of the linked articles bothered to provide any meaningful details, just "this is more better!"
One of them implied that this was somehow provided for outdoor ISP use - any clarification on that? Is this available for everyone indoors, but limited when used outdoors, or ???
Where does this right you mention come from? There's a right to free speech/expression, but where does the right to force another person or business to carry your speech come from? If I can force you to carry my speech, can I also force you to STFU?
"Fundamental freedom involves *not* having the State decide who may marry whom (as is the natural state of things). "
Which is, in actuality, entirely compatible with Prop 8, which had nothing to do with the act of getting married but with whether the state would recognize that marriage and consequently grant special privileges because of it (such as beneficial tax rates).
There's nothing discriminatory about Prop 8, it treated everyone exactly equally - whether you were hetero or homo, the state would only provide special privileges based on marriage if it was to a person of the opposite sex. And, it didn't take away any "rights" - there is no right to get married, marriage is an artificial (religious or legal) construct, not a natural one, either the church or state can legitimately set their own rules regarding who they consider to be married. There's no right to reduced taxation or any other privilege because you're married.
One might as well argue that tax laws, which excuse those making less than $X from paying, are illegal discrimination against those making more. Or that providing Secret Service and a private plane to the President violates the Equal Protection clause because Joe Blow doesn't get the same when he travels.
"People agree that blacklisting based on political associations is a bad thing, except when it comes to blacklisting people that they disagree with"
Exactly. McAvoy exhibits the highest level of hypocrisy:
McAvoy added that he feels fortunate to work at a company like Mozilla, "where I can say that without fear of retribution."
...plainly admitting that he's glad they respect his right to hold and voice his own beliefs, while simultaneously encouraging them to not respect those he doesn't agree with (which, BTW, were in the majority).
Yes, they have similar responsibilities to their employer (to make a bona fide effort do do the work they were hired for), and also similar rights to their own personal beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
I take it you've never searched for something on Amazon. Worst search engine EVAR. Results will include completely random items. Sort by price and you'll get results ordered pretty much randomly (maybe the moving average increases somewhat).
I won't disagree with most of what you've said - it's just semantics.
However, even if one considers marriage a "right," nothing in Prop8 denies that right - whether hetero or homo, everyone still had the "right" to marry a person of the opposite sex. If that's some sort of infringement, is this "right" of marriage allowed to discriminate at all? Can a person marry a corporation, which have been found to have rights similar to individuals (Citizens United)? How about a member of another species?
The internationally agreed time standard (TAI or UTC, which are the same, only different) is based on an ensemble of clocks throughout the world. The contribution from NIST (and USNO) is only a part of the realization.
Because of this, actual time can only be known after the fact, because post-processing is needed.
Indirectly, via a GPS refclock.
Kilograms are not weight, they are mass.
Kilograms are units of mass, not weight ( that would be Newtons, which is a force).
Errors are not caused by "miscounting," but due to the fact that no physical realization can be perfect. The second is defined under the conditions of zero acceleration (i.e. no gravity) and at a temperature of absolute zero, neither of which are attainable in practice.
"He wanted to use political force to deny rights to people. So it's more then just an opinion."
You don't know what rights are. Marriage, and the governmental advantages associated with it (such as lower tax rates), is a privilege. Whether hetero or homo, there is no "right" for anyone to get married, or to have the state recognize that marriage.
Furthermore, he was supporting his own opinion, which was not only with the side of the majority, but was related to a right we do have, the right to vote. Would you support firing the over 50% of California voters who supported Prop 8? (That's rhetorical - of course you would, you've shown yourself to be an intolerant bigot)
You're confusing rights with privileges. The government related advantages of marriage are not rights.
Joe McCarthy would be proud.
No comments here as to why BU might want the parties kept private.
Let me hazard to guess that the settlements/licenses included confidentiality clauses, and the publication of the names may somehow work against BU.
OTOH, if BU brought suit against all these companies, wouldn't any post-settlement dismissal of those suits necessarily be a matter of public record?
Think of it as a workstation with a processor as powerful as cell phone.
Don't be so sure. Bunny was the guy behind the Chumby (and related Insignia Infocast and Sony Dash devices), which was mildly successful for a while (the hardware was relatively inexpensive, but the service costs were apparently unsustainable).
What consumer products constitute your bona fides?
But just the MB is $500 - there's not much done by hand on one of those. And it has 5-10 year old technology like USB 2.0 and SATA 2 (and it sounds like there's only a single one of those ports!).
Well, obviously if a jury completely lacks any sort of reasoning skills, as you do, there would be no bias.
But, the chances of grouping 12 imbeciles from a random selection is very improbable.
The whole purpose of the patent system is to get inventors to publicize their inventions so they can be copied (after the patent term expires). Copying with greater efficiency benefits the consumer. You seem to imply that copying is bad, in and of itself. Do you only use Bayer aspirin? Do you avoid iPhones and iPads because they don't use Intel microprocessors?
Getting a patent is supposed to require coming up with something new and non-obvious - something many of Apple's patent claims lack. (e.g. pinch/spread to compress/zoom).
There's also the issue of Apple's apparent copying of a Samsung design when they created the iPad, which they disingenuously tried to claim in reverse.
OTOH, maybe it helps Samsung by providing an obvious legal error as a basis for appeal.
How can an "instructional video" showing one of the parties as an example not present a bias?
Thanks for that, since neither of the linked articles bothered to provide any meaningful details, just "this is more better!"
One of them implied that this was somehow provided for outdoor ISP use - any clarification on that? Is this available for everyone indoors, but limited when used outdoors, or ???
"Best" is subjective. The claim is mere puffery - any suit for false advertising would be quickly dismissed.
" the right for people to be heard?"
Where does this right you mention come from? There's a right to free speech/expression, but where does the right to force another person or business to carry your speech come from? If I can force you to carry my speech, can I also force you to STFU?
QED
"Fundamental freedom involves *not* having the State decide who may marry whom (as is the natural state of things). "
Which is, in actuality, entirely compatible with Prop 8, which had nothing to do with the act of getting married but with whether the state would recognize that marriage and consequently grant special privileges because of it (such as beneficial tax rates).
There's nothing discriminatory about Prop 8, it treated everyone exactly equally - whether you were hetero or homo, the state would only provide special privileges based on marriage if it was to a person of the opposite sex. And, it didn't take away any "rights" - there is no right to get married, marriage is an artificial (religious or legal) construct, not a natural one, either the church or state can legitimately set their own rules regarding who they consider to be married. There's no right to reduced taxation or any other privilege because you're married.
One might as well argue that tax laws, which excuse those making less than $X from paying, are illegal discrimination against those making more. Or that providing Secret Service and a private plane to the President violates the Equal Protection clause because Joe Blow doesn't get the same when he travels.
Reducing complex issues to black and white makes you an idiot.
Exactly. McAvoy exhibits the highest level of hypocrisy:
...plainly admitting that he's glad they respect his right to hold and voice his own beliefs, while simultaneously encouraging them to not respect those he doesn't agree with (which, BTW, were in the majority).
Yes, they have similar responsibilities to their employer (to make a bona fide effort do do the work they were hired for), and also similar rights to their own personal beliefs.