Quite possibly. Different point though. I believe the initial discussion in this thread centered around whether or not gov was trying to force the situation to occur, and whether or not that ultimately represents a 1st amendment violation.
While this doesn't sound like it's this sort of situation, what if some perv convinces young children to take pictures of themselves and send it to him? Though in any case, the last person who should ever be considered for kiddy porn charges is the child.
Not really, because the assumption is that everyone deserves to be taxed. Not being taxed is the exception - it's a special privilege, and if you want that status, you are required to do certain things.
If having non-profit status provides a significant competitive advantage, then eventually all newspapers will be non-profit organizations.
I was going to post something about the quickest way to get copyright reform would be for filings like this to be copyrighted. I got your joke even if some random moderator didn't.
But if one of them is wrong, you can check the others and correct it.
My boss - a lead senior senior lead developer from Android Whorehouse & Douche - several years back, when I tried explaining "why I'd missed some fields out of one of the tables".
I was about to post something explaining to you why that's bad, and then I reread your post and the whooshing noise around me quieted down.
The last "quirky" genius I worked with had a habit of looking at things he'd just finished and declaring somewhat loudly (and vaguely reminiscent of a Guinness commercial) "GENIUS!"
One day he asked me why I didn't go about bragging about my abilities, as if the lack of bragging somehow made me a lesser being. I told him that if I were a genius, it'd be self evident to anyone looking at my work and they wouldn't need me to tell them.
Whenever I hear the word "clever" relating to code, I cringe. I generally use it as an insult. In any professional project, clever code generally means "unmaintainable."
Second that. When we're having design discussions, I sometimes veto ideas with the reason of "I don't want this library to be that smart."
Sometimes you need a solution NOW, and you will have time to clean it up (or re-implement it more carefully) later.
Except, cleanup (or re-implementation) never happens. What will happen is layer upon layer to work around bugs and problems. Because you can (almost) never justify to upper management that you need to reimplement something that works and the finish product is basically the same you started out with (with cleaner code, maybe).
Not just that, but I *can* come up with something less than ideal on the spot when it's necessary. I don't need some guy just for those situations, all the more so because most of the rest of my time is dedicated towards preventing that scenario anyway.
Also not a typo in same post is "rash", meaning many instance in a short time, and nothing to do with skin irritation (and drugs to treat it) and the government trying to use ACTA to hide it.
People with bio-diesel cars go up to restaurants and are freely given the stuff because otherwise the restaurant has to spend time/money in disposing of it.
Perhaps people who are motivated only by the prospect of profit would never create anything ever again, and maybe that would be a real loss to society.
It's not necessarily profit for the sake of profit.
Let's say I'm an author. And I have a family. My family and I need a dwelling, food, and assorted other basics.
If I can't profit from my writings, it means I need to do something else to make money. And that time spent doing something else is time NOT spent writing. We end up restricting our pool of authors to those people who for whatever reason can get away with not working for the amount of time it takes to produce something.
Copyright is a useful concept. It's gotten itself to some fairly absurd terms nowadays, which is the bulk of the problem.
This is the most absurd post I've ever read. Maybe this was true 15 years ago. You moronic mudophiles think that because you hear a squishy sound when you sit in the mud it's superior to Xerox. This really insults the BCT (Butt Capture Technology) advances that Xerox's researchers have made in recent years. It's really gotten to a point where mud just can't compete. Anyone who does Butt Captures professionally has known this for years now.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite possibly. Different point though. I believe the initial discussion in this thread centered around whether or not gov was trying to force the situation to occur, and whether or not that ultimately represents a 1st amendment violation.
What if they do it by their own will?
While this doesn't sound like it's this sort of situation, what if some perv convinces young children to take pictures of themselves and send it to him? Though in any case, the last person who should ever be considered for kiddy porn charges is the child.
Not really, because the assumption is that everyone deserves to be taxed. Not being taxed is the exception - it's a special privilege, and if you want that status, you are required to do certain things.
If having non-profit status provides a significant competitive advantage, then eventually all newspapers will be non-profit organizations.
Sometimes we send out sound waves that are actually polite requests for the fish to provide us with their current coordinates.
I was going to post something about the quickest way to get copyright reform would be for filings like this to be copyrighted. I got your joke even if some random moderator didn't.
Thank you.
I take it the RIAA attorneys felt it had an actual chance of being granted in this case?
Wouldn't shock me, but do you have a citation for that?
A few questions for anyone who might know:
1. Does voluntarily dismissing the case with prejudice prevent them from getting sanctioned?
2. Independent of #1, what happens if you are sanctioned under Rule 11?
3. How often is a party sanctioned this way?
Names don't always mean what they sound like they should mean, such as Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
But if one of them is wrong, you can check the others and correct it.
My boss - a lead senior senior lead developer from Android Whorehouse & Douche - several years back, when I tried explaining "why I'd missed some fields out of one of the tables".
I was about to post something explaining to you why that's bad, and then I reread your post and the whooshing noise around me quieted down.
That is so cute!
The last "quirky" genius I worked with had a habit of looking at things he'd just finished and declaring somewhat loudly (and vaguely reminiscent of a Guinness commercial) "GENIUS!"
One day he asked me why I didn't go about bragging about my abilities, as if the lack of bragging somehow made me a lesser being. I told him that if I were a genius, it'd be self evident to anyone looking at my work and they wouldn't need me to tell them.
Whenever I hear the word "clever" relating to code, I cringe. I generally use it as an insult. In any professional project, clever code generally means "unmaintainable."
Second that. When we're having design discussions, I sometimes veto ideas with the reason of "I don't want this library to be that smart."
Sometimes you need a solution NOW, and you will have time to clean it up (or re-implement it more carefully) later.
Except, cleanup (or re-implementation) never happens. What will happen is layer upon layer to work around bugs and problems. Because you can (almost) never justify to upper management that you need to reimplement something that works and the finish product is basically the same you started out with (with cleaner code, maybe).
Not just that, but I *can* come up with something less than ideal on the spot when it's necessary. I don't need some guy just for those situations, all the more so because most of the rest of my time is dedicated towards preventing that scenario anyway.
Also not a typo in same post is "rash", meaning many instance in a short time, and nothing to do with skin irritation (and drugs to treat it) and the government trying to use ACTA to hide it.
Except used veggie oil is currently waste.
People with bio-diesel cars go up to restaurants and are freely given the stuff because otherwise the restaurant has to spend time/money in disposing of it.
So... still not seeing the problem.
Where's the problem in that?
Wow I would simply not have made the connection without your helpful comment. Much obliged!
I was mostly referring to the implicit assumption that it's not already on there.
Expect to see Utah added to the axis of evil really soon now!
What do you mean, added?
Perhaps people who are motivated only by the prospect of profit would never create anything ever again, and maybe that would be a real loss to society.
It's not necessarily profit for the sake of profit.
Let's say I'm an author. And I have a family. My family and I need a dwelling, food, and assorted other basics.
If I can't profit from my writings, it means I need to do something else to make money. And that time spent doing something else is time NOT spent writing. We end up restricting our pool of authors to those people who for whatever reason can get away with not working for the amount of time it takes to produce something.
Copyright is a useful concept. It's gotten itself to some fairly absurd terms nowadays, which is the bulk of the problem.
I love the smell of irradiated posterior in the morning.
This is the most absurd post I've ever read. Maybe this was true 15 years ago. You moronic mudophiles think that because you hear a squishy sound when you sit in the mud it's superior to Xerox. This really insults the BCT (Butt Capture Technology) advances that Xerox's researchers have made in recent years. It's really gotten to a point where mud just can't compete. Anyone who does Butt Captures professionally has known this for years now.
Fair enough. It is a pretty big assumption.
ah.... if only it were doTheSendAsSuch()