It's worth noting that the situation you cite has happened exactly once in all recorded history, so it's not exactly a common case worth optimizing for.
Actually, no. It's happened to commercial flights at least 3 times that are not in dispute, and 3 more that are disputed to varying degrees. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
That doesn't necessarily invalidate your point, but 6 times over 30ish years is somewhat disturbing. In general, I agree that off-work time should be off-limits to employers, but there are real cases where things that happen off-work have a real, clear, and direct impact on someone's ability to perform their job duties.
Warning: I'm a huge Perl fan. If you don't care, ignore me.
Calling on external C functions from Perl is a pain. You can't ignore all those C functions, there's way too many useful ones out there. There's UNIX system calls, XWindows and higher level GUI libraries, socket and networking stuff, file manipulation, and everything in libc. Perl has a good bit of that covered natively, but suppose you want to use OpenGL? Then you're stuck trying to figure out Frozen Bubble for example. Or you could do it yourself and grind out the XS manually, or fix some automatically generated XS. If you're lucky, someone else has already put together a module, and that module works. Or you say the heck with it and just use C.
XS has a pretty steep learning curve. It's possible to learn to use it effectively, but in my experience that can take some time, and as you point out, "just use C" is often a better choice if you don't want to spend that time.
The return from a function could be anything from a simple integer to an object that's an instance of a class in a very big ugly hierarchy Well, sure, but that's like saying "my $i" might represent an int or a string or a ref at any given time. Of course functions can return any type of value, or multiple values of different types. Or even completely different values and types depending on what context it's called in (whether the caller expects a single value or a list of them). It's a feature of the language.
you can't tell what class it is Sure you can, if you need to. ref($thing) returns a string that represents what type of thing $thing refers to. In the case of blessed references (i.e., objects), that string will begin with the class name. Or better yet, use the 'isa()' method. $thing->isa('My::Type') returns true if $thing is of type My::Type (or some other type derived from My::Type). But it isn't often necessary, because even though they can, functions don't often return different types of values based on some arbitrary criteria.
Lazy undisciplined programmers can very quickly make a horrendous mess. The same is true of any language. No exceptions. Lazy, undisciplined programmers write bad code. They're very capable of doing it in whatever language you care to choose. Sometimes several all at once, if my experience is any guide.
What, some class doesn't have a function called "draw" because it didn't inherit from the correct branch? Just add one, and who cares about keeping the hierarchy sane! Huh? If it didn't inherit one at all, then none of the classes it derives from implemented one. If it inherited the "wrong" one, well, that's a classic problem with multiple inheritance. Any language which supports multiple inheritance will need some mechanism for dealing with the problem.
I've heard Perl called a "write only language". People love to say that, but it's very FUD-like. Well-written Perl isn't any harder to follow, understand, or maintain than well-written code in any language. Poorly written code is hard to understand and maintain, but that's hardly the fault of the language.
ok, as a cable industry insider, no. Cable card SUCKS for the MSO's, as they are more expensive, they don't work easy (costs money to roll trucks), etc. If you want to blame anyone, look at the FCC who mandated separable security for set top boxes. Cable Card set tops can triple the price that SA or Moto charges the MSO (and trust me, they will pass that cost on to you).
Say what you want, but Cable Card is NOT the desire of the MSO. A valiant effort at misdirection, but here's the truth: MSOs don't want CableCARDs because there's no specification yet for two-way host devices, and therefore they don't work with VOD and PPV. CableCARDs represent a loss of revenue not because they're "hard to install" (they're not), but because those customers are then unable to use extra-cost services
It's quite clear from your list of "reasons" that either you've never actually used a CableCARD, or you're a cable company shill.
By way of refutation:
Installation only requires your cable company to come out because they say it does. The entire installation procedure consists of:
Insert card.
Call in pairing information. This consists of a couple of numbers found on a screen automatically displayed by your host device.
Any deviation from those steps is almost certainly due to the incompetence of your cable company.
CableCARDs are supported everywhere by every cable company (with a few rare exceptions. The FCC mandates that cable companies (including Verizon for their FIOS service) will provide CableCARDs to any customer who asks for one.
Again, this has more to do with the cable company's incompetence that it does with the general bugginess of the CableCARD technology. It's true that the newer M-Cards are known for being more buggy than their older counterparts the S-Cards, but even this is somewhat overexaggerated.
I've been using CableCARDs in various host devices for the past year and a half, and I've never had any trouble with the cards themselves. I've had three separate installation experiences with two different cable companies, and while the most recent experience was an absolute horror story, that was entirely due to the company's screwed-up policies and unknowledgable install techs. The other two installations went perfectly.
Most of the purported "problems" with CableCARDs are cable company FUD, pure and simple. It's true that you lose support for VOD, PPV, and interactive program guide, but for many cable customers, these aren't a problem (especially those whose CableCARDs are installed in third-party DVRs). But it's a huge problem for cable companies, who generate tons of revenue from those features.
When someone who is NOT sick sneezes, etc the risk of any type of infection spreading is nil. Now there is always the chance someone has something but doesn't know it, and hence it is prudent to take others into consideration. But this attitude of using disinfectants and antibiotic soaps, etc make things worse, not better when they are misapplied.
If you're that concerned about antibacterials, perhaps you should stop brushing your teeth? (Many toothpastes contain triclosan, the same antibacterial agent found in most antibacterial hand soaps).
Antibacterial != Antibiotic, even though they perform much the same function. Most antibacterial soaps and lotions are made with either triclosan or ethanol; neither has any link to increased bacterial resistance. In fact, there are no fewer than seven peer-reviewed studies indicating that triclosan is not significantly associated with bacterial resistance (cf. Wikipedia).
How about the situation:
company x wants to make a book based on novel by author Y. Y refuses, company X kills Y. Should company X be able to make a movie without any access rights issues?
Can it be proven that company X killed Y? If so, no, they shouldn't be able to make the movie, because they'd be profiting as the result of a crime. If it can't be proven that they killed Y, then, yes, they should be allowed to make the movie, just like anyone else.
What about Author z wishes to provide for Zs family, so writes a book on deathbed. should this book become public domain when Z dies?
Absolutely.
Companies and organizations can hold copyright. Generally this copyright is held for a fixed period of years (as companies do not have to "die"). Should companies' copyrights be protected more than humans (whose copyrights would expire when they die?
Companies should not be allowed to hold copyrights. The point of copyright is to promote the public good by encouraging creation and innovation through the temporary exclusivity provided by copyright law. The public good is not served by allowing corporations to hold copyrights.
Re:My short experience with perl...
on
What is Perl 6?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Dang it, copy-and-paste missed a couple of sentences at the end. Here they are, in context:
It turns out Perl is *still* clever enough to figure out that $list[0] is a reference, and will automatically dereference it for you. No -> required. The beauty of this automatic dereferencing is that it allows Perl to DWIM (Do What I Mean): Perl is perfectly content to let you pretend that a 'list of *references* to lists' is actually just a 'list of lists'. The downside of the automatic dereferencing is that it turns the easy-to-miss difference between '((1,2),(3,4))' and '([1,2],[3,4])' into Just Another Bit Of Fiddly Syntax To Remember.
Re:My short experience with perl...
on
What is Perl 6?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Yes, that's really intuitive, thanks. Especially when every perl doc I see around tells me to use curved parentheses for lists, and @ prefixes for variables that refer to them, and I have no clue what data structure you've used above.
You're right; you do need curved parens for real lists. It may be helpful to think of the @ mark as referring to multiple values, rather than to a list specifically. It's also used for list and hash slices, like this: @list[1,3,5] and @names{'tom', 'dick', 'harry'} (Both of those expressions really just evaluate to lists, but, particularly with the hash slice, that's not necessarily obvious).
The other responders, in their haste to point out how much perlier-than-thou they are, have glossed over the fact that 'my $list = [[1,2],[3,4],5,[6,7,8]];', as you've pointed out, doesn't exactly produce a list of lists. It produces a data structure that's close enough to a list of lists that they can call it that without being entirely wrong.
(Warning: Perl content. I love Perl, so it'll probably sound like I'm rambling. My apologies.)
You can't directly create a list of lists in Perl. Not possible, because they'll get flattened. But what you can do is create a list of *references* to lists. There are two ways to do this:
my @list1 = (1, 2, 3);
my @list2 = (4, 5, 6);
my @combined = (\@list1, \@list2);
Or:
my @combined = ([1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6]);
This second syntax is called the anonymous list syntax.
The upshot is that lists are surrounded by (), as you already know, but that by replacing them with [], you get a reference to a list with no other name. The same can be done for hashes with {}, which means that all Perl data structures can be arbitrarily nested.
So, your Python example, in Perl, would create a reference to a list of references to lists. Its elements would be accessed like this:
my $list = [[1,2],[3,4],5,[6,7,8]];
print $list->[0][1] # prints 2
The -> is used for dereferencing, but Perl is clever enough to figure out that the value of '$list->[0]' is also a reference, and doesn't require you to write the -> between [0] and [1].
You could also write your example like this:
my @list = ([1,2],[3,4],5,[6,7,8]); # note the ()
print $list[0][1] # *also* prints 2!
It turns out Perl is *still* clever enough to figure out that $list[0] is a reference, and will automatically dereference it for you. No -> required.
but you can put a Porsche engine in a VW Eurovan... same engine mounts... (well the late 80's vanagon anyway...)
There are even people out there who put Chevy engines in their late 80's Vanagons. (Well, I think it was Chevy, anyway. Regardless, it was definitely something American).
And it's a really good idea, too... the water-cooled Vanagon engine was a piece of trash. Pretty much the only reason they went watercooled in the first place was that people weren't buying aircooled --- so instead of redesigning the entire thing, they bolted some cooling heads on. As good as German engineering often is, here's an equation they missed: cast iron block + aluminum heads = bad idea.
At least we know who will go for the patent for acquiring patents on movie plots. It'll be these enterprising young lawyers.
This decision is quite funny. A couple of months ago, Slashdot was running a story about a piece by Richard Stallman where he made the analogy with the works of Victor Hugo being covered by patents on literary plots. Then there were some posters who thought Dr. Stallman was making an absurd comparison, and that patents on literature would never happen.
Well, well...
Just to play devil's advocate with regard to literary plot patents...
According to the website you linked, Knight and Associates are working to get utility patents for storylines. [Their premise is, put mildy, a bunch of crap, but whatever.] I have no idea if they've been successful yet, but it doesn't matter much. Their argument is that copyright is unsuitable to protect storylines, and therefore utility patents should be used. Here's where it gets interesting.
In the US (and probably many other places), copyright terms are Life+70. Also in the US, utility patents expire after... 20 years, fully 8 years less than the so-called "Founder's copyright," and, IMO, certainly long enough for any legitimate use of "Intellectual Property" law.
Granted, this would likely change very, very quickly --- but, then again, maybe not. And if literary patents are a means to this end, well, I could probably accept it. Not agree, but accept.
98.6 is a fairly bogus number with respect to significant digits. It is just 40C converted to Fahrenheit, but even that number is plus or minus a degree or two for normal population distribution.
It's just 37C converted to Fahrenheit. 40C is 104F.
The calendar actually has exactly nothing to do with when Jesus died. It's all about when he was born ("Anno Domini" means "In the year of the Lord").
Of course, things are confused a bit by the fact that the monk who figured it out in the first place got it wrong by a few years; Jesus was born somewhere between 8 BC and 4 BC rather than AD 1.
You pointed to a 'major' pharm company spending 7 billion. There aren't that many major players, and most of their R&D money are spent on drug trials. That's an expensive part of the research process, but it's the end stage. Most of that money isn't spent discovering a cure, but making sure the possible cure doesn't kill you in other ways. That's not drug discovery, that's human drug toxicity testing. The universities around the country are where most of the real research happens.
Since I happen to know quite a bit about the drug company/clinical trial end of the business, I thought I'd speak up a bit here. It's true that a huge chunk of drug research is not funded by the drug companies themselves, but it would be wrong to imply that they don't do any research of their own past "human drug toxicity testing". For one thing, they do some genuine drug discovery of their own.
It's true that much of their R&D budget is spent on clinical trials, but those are, at best, only half "toxicity testing". In order to get a drug approved by the FDA, you're required not only to prove its safety, but also its efficacy, through clinical trials. This is why companies often spend lots and lots of money on new trials for drugs that have already been approved for one indication: a drug must be separately tested and approved for each indication. There's usually also long-term safety trials that continue even after a drug has been approved. It's not uncommon for clinical trials to run three or four years before they're complete, and it would be some time after that before the formal approval application could be submitted.
For those who are still interested, note that this doesn't mean that drugs have always been tested for efficacy on everything they're used to treat -- once a drug has been approved for one thing, it can legally be prescribed for anything else at the physician's discretion (off-label prescription). The company is not permitted to make any claims about using it for that purpose, though, even things like 'may be used to treat X'. These claims, and drug packaging and labeling in general, are very highly regulated.
My question is, what sort of neutrality are we seeking here? "All providers of two-way communications." I fail to see how your internet service and your phone service are sufficiently similar. Maybe they should charge Motorola that tax for selling FRS radios. (sarcasm intended)
Am I the only one who predicts a tax on stamps? I mean, the article said "All providers of two-way communication, regardless of the technology" (emphasis mine). I mean, sure, it's "half-duplex", if you will, but it's still two-way.
(Yes, I realize we're talking about the Telecommunications Act. I'm just saying...;o)
Re:Just a proposal, hopefully...
on
Dutch Pass iPod Tax
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I think a better solution would be this: don't use the "insert primary selection" (middle-click) feature when you really mean "insert the contents of the clipboard" (usually control-v). For many uses, just selecting something and then inserting that selection somewhere else is a "good enough" substitute for copy/paste, but it's not the same thing. When it's not "good enough" (eg. copying URLs into an already-filled address bar), use the clipboard. Granted, that's not so easy with terminal emulators sometimes, but that's a problem with the individual app, not with X.
Juries are to judge based on the law, it's not their job to change said law (short of the Supreme court). If the law states that it is clearly, unequiviocally illegal, they will have little choice but to rule him guilty no matter how stupid, excessive and cruel they may find the law to be.
Interestingly, that's not true (at least, not in the US). Most jurors don't know it, but they have every right to rule according to their conscience -- it's called jury nullification. The catch is that the jury has to decide to do it all by themselves. A lawyer is not allowed to argue that the jury should do this. It's very uncommon, but still permissible.
Of course, IANAL. This is just my understanding of the way things work.
Slashdot Mirror
It's worth noting that the situation you cite has happened exactly once in all recorded history, so it's not exactly a common case worth optimizing for.
Actually, no. It's happened to commercial flights at least 3 times that are not in dispute, and 3 more that are disputed to varying degrees. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
That doesn't necessarily invalidate your point, but 6 times over 30ish years is somewhat disturbing. In general, I agree that off-work time should be off-limits to employers, but there are real cases where things that happen off-work have a real, clear, and direct impact on someone's ability to perform their job duties.
He's not talking like Yoda, he's talking like Richard Lovelace. To quote: "Stone walls do not a prison make / Nor iron bars a cage."
:o)
Someone please tell me that this is still a well-known quote, even if the source isn't. Please
Say what you want, but Cable Card is NOT the desire of the MSO. A valiant effort at misdirection, but here's the truth: MSOs don't want CableCARDs because there's no specification yet for two-way host devices, and therefore they don't work with VOD and PPV. CableCARDs represent a loss of revenue not because they're "hard to install" (they're not), but because those customers are then unable to use extra-cost services
By way of refutation:
- Installation only requires your cable company to come out because they say it does. The entire installation procedure consists of:
- CableCARDs are supported everywhere by every cable company (with a few rare exceptions. The FCC mandates that cable companies (including Verizon for their FIOS service) will provide CableCARDs to any customer who asks for one.
- Again, this has more to do with the cable company's incompetence that it does with the general bugginess of the CableCARD technology. It's true that the newer M-Cards are known for being more buggy than their older counterparts the S-Cards, but even this is somewhat overexaggerated.
I've been using CableCARDs in various host devices for the past year and a half, and I've never had any trouble with the cards themselves. I've had three separate installation experiences with two different cable companies, and while the most recent experience was an absolute horror story, that was entirely due to the company's screwed-up policies and unknowledgable install techs. The other two installations went perfectly.- Insert card.
- Call in pairing information. This consists of a couple of numbers found on a screen automatically displayed by your host device.
Any deviation from those steps is almost certainly due to the incompetence of your cable company.Most of the purported "problems" with CableCARDs are cable company FUD, pure and simple. It's true that you lose support for VOD, PPV, and interactive program guide, but for many cable customers, these aren't a problem (especially those whose CableCARDs are installed in third-party DVRs). But it's a huge problem for cable companies, who generate tons of revenue from those features.
When someone who is NOT sick sneezes, etc the risk of any type of infection spreading is nil. Now there is always the chance someone has something but doesn't know it, and hence it is prudent to take others into consideration. But this attitude of using disinfectants and antibiotic soaps, etc make things worse, not better when they are misapplied.
If you're that concerned about antibacterials, perhaps you should stop brushing your teeth? (Many toothpastes contain triclosan, the same antibacterial agent found in most antibacterial hand soaps).
Antibacterial != Antibiotic, even though they perform much the same function. Most antibacterial soaps and lotions are made with either triclosan or ethanol; neither has any link to increased bacterial resistance. In fact, there are no fewer than seven peer-reviewed studies indicating that triclosan is not significantly associated with bacterial resistance (cf. Wikipedia).
How about the situation: company x wants to make a book based on novel by author Y. Y refuses, company X kills Y. Should company X be able to make a movie without any access rights issues?
Can it be proven that company X killed Y? If so, no, they shouldn't be able to make the movie, because they'd be profiting as the result of a crime. If it can't be proven that they killed Y, then, yes, they should be allowed to make the movie, just like anyone else.
What about Author z wishes to provide for Zs family, so writes a book on deathbed. should this book become public domain when Z dies?
Absolutely.
Companies and organizations can hold copyright. Generally this copyright is held for a fixed period of years (as companies do not have to "die"). Should companies' copyrights be protected more than humans (whose copyrights would expire when they die?
Companies should not be allowed to hold copyrights. The point of copyright is to promote the public good by encouraging creation and innovation through the temporary exclusivity provided by copyright law. The public good is not served by allowing corporations to hold copyrights.
Dang it, copy-and-paste missed a couple of sentences at the end. Here they are, in context:
It turns out Perl is *still* clever enough to figure out that $list[0] is a reference, and will automatically dereference it for you. No -> required. The beauty of this automatic dereferencing is that it allows Perl to DWIM (Do What I Mean): Perl is perfectly content to let you pretend that a 'list of *references* to lists' is actually just a 'list of lists'. The downside of the automatic dereferencing is that it turns the easy-to-miss difference between '((1,2),(3,4))' and '([1,2],[3,4])' into Just Another Bit Of Fiddly Syntax To Remember.
Yes, that's really intuitive, thanks. Especially when every perl doc I see around tells me to use curved parentheses for lists, and @ prefixes for variables that refer to them, and I have no clue what data structure you've used above.
You're right; you do need curved parens for real lists. It may be helpful to think of the @ mark as referring to multiple values, rather than to a list specifically. It's also used for list and hash slices, like this: @list[1,3,5] and @names{'tom', 'dick', 'harry'} (Both of those expressions really just evaluate to lists, but, particularly with the hash slice, that's not necessarily obvious).
The other responders, in their haste to point out how much perlier-than-thou they are, have glossed over the fact that 'my $list = [[1,2],[3,4],5,[6,7,8]];', as you've pointed out, doesn't exactly produce a list of lists. It produces a data structure that's close enough to a list of lists that they can call it that without being entirely wrong.
(Warning: Perl content. I love Perl, so it'll probably sound like I'm rambling. My apologies.)
You can't directly create a list of lists in Perl. Not possible, because they'll get flattened. But what you can do is create a list of *references* to lists. There are two ways to do this:
my @list1 = (1, 2, 3);
my @list2 = (4, 5, 6);
my @combined = (\@list1, \@list2);
Or:
my @combined = ([1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6]);
This second syntax is called the anonymous list syntax.
The upshot is that lists are surrounded by (), as you already know, but that by replacing them with [], you get a reference to a list with no other name. The same can be done for hashes with {}, which means that all Perl data structures can be arbitrarily nested.
So, your Python example, in Perl, would create a reference to a list of references to lists. Its elements would be accessed like this:
my $list = [[1,2],[3,4],5,[6,7,8]];
print $list->[0][1] # prints 2
The -> is used for dereferencing, but Perl is clever enough to figure out that the value of '$list->[0]' is also a reference, and doesn't require you to write the -> between [0] and [1].
You could also write your example like this:
my @list = ([1,2],[3,4],5,[6,7,8]); # note the ()
print $list[0][1] # *also* prints 2!
It turns out Perl is *still* clever enough to figure out that $list[0] is a reference, and will automatically dereference it for you. No -> required.
I hope this helps clear things up a bit!
but you can put a Porsche engine in a VW Eurovan... same engine mounts... (well the late 80's vanagon anyway...)
There are even people out there who put Chevy engines in their late 80's Vanagons. (Well, I think it was Chevy, anyway. Regardless, it was definitely something American).
And it's a really good idea, too... the water-cooled Vanagon engine was a piece of trash. Pretty much the only reason they went watercooled in the first place was that people weren't buying aircooled --- so instead of redesigning the entire thing, they bolted some cooling heads on. As good as German engineering often is, here's an equation they missed: cast iron block + aluminum heads = bad idea.
Well technically, I believe no one is supposed to use a person's SSN as an ID number.
:o)
Except the Social Security Administration
At least we know who will go for the patent for acquiring patents on movie plots. It'll be these enterprising young lawyers.
This decision is quite funny. A couple of months ago, Slashdot was running a story about a piece by Richard Stallman where he made the analogy with the works of Victor Hugo being covered by patents on literary plots. Then there were some posters who thought Dr. Stallman was making an absurd comparison, and that patents on literature would never happen.
Well, well...
Just to play devil's advocate with regard to literary plot patents...
According to the website you linked, Knight and Associates are working to get utility patents for storylines. [Their premise is, put mildy, a bunch of crap, but whatever.] I have no idea if they've been successful yet, but it doesn't matter much. Their argument is that copyright is unsuitable to protect storylines, and therefore utility patents should be used. Here's where it gets interesting.
In the US (and probably many other places), copyright terms are Life+70. Also in the US, utility patents expire after... 20 years, fully 8 years less than the so-called "Founder's copyright," and, IMO, certainly long enough for any legitimate use of "Intellectual Property" law.
Granted, this would likely change very, very quickly --- but, then again, maybe not. And if literary patents are a means to this end, well, I could probably accept it. Not agree, but accept.
Since you're picking nits anyway... :o)
98.6 is a fairly bogus number with respect to significant digits. It is just 40C converted to Fahrenheit, but even that number is plus or minus a degree or two for normal population distribution.
It's just 37C converted to Fahrenheit. 40C is 104F.
Auto insurance is legalized robbery.
;o)
Hmm... looks like you've misspelled "mandated". HTH
Just to nitpick a bit :o)
The calendar actually has exactly nothing to do with when Jesus died. It's all about when he was born ("Anno Domini" means "In the year of the Lord").
Of course, things are confused a bit by the fact that the monk who figured it out in the first place got it wrong by a few years; Jesus was born somewhere between 8 BC and 4 BC rather than AD 1.
You pointed to a 'major' pharm company spending 7 billion. There aren't that many major players, and most of their R&D money are spent on drug trials. That's an expensive part of the research process, but it's the end stage. Most of that money isn't spent discovering a cure, but making sure the possible cure doesn't kill you in other ways. That's not drug discovery, that's human drug toxicity testing. The universities around the country are where most of the real research happens.
Since I happen to know quite a bit about the drug company/clinical trial end of the business, I thought I'd speak up a bit here. It's true that a huge chunk of drug research is not funded by the drug companies themselves, but it would be wrong to imply that they don't do any research of their own past "human drug toxicity testing". For one thing, they do some genuine drug discovery of their own.
It's true that much of their R&D budget is spent on clinical trials, but those are, at best, only half "toxicity testing". In order to get a drug approved by the FDA, you're required not only to prove its safety, but also its efficacy, through clinical trials. This is why companies often spend lots and lots of money on new trials for drugs that have already been approved for one indication: a drug must be separately tested and approved for each indication. There's usually also long-term safety trials that continue even after a drug has been approved. It's not uncommon for clinical trials to run three or four years before they're complete, and it would be some time after that before the formal approval application could be submitted.
For those who are still interested, note that this doesn't mean that drugs have always been tested for efficacy on everything they're used to treat -- once a drug has been approved for one thing, it can legally be prescribed for anything else at the physician's discretion (off-label prescription). The company is not permitted to make any claims about using it for that purpose, though, even things like 'may be used to treat X'. These claims, and drug packaging and labeling in general, are very highly regulated.
My question is, what sort of neutrality are we seeking here? "All providers of two-way communications." I fail to see how your internet service and your phone service are sufficiently similar. Maybe they should charge Motorola that tax for selling FRS radios. (sarcasm intended)
;o)
Am I the only one who predicts a tax on stamps? I mean, the article said "All providers of two-way communication, regardless of the technology" (emphasis mine). I mean, sure, it's "half-duplex", if you will, but it's still two-way.
(Yes, I realize we're talking about the Telecommunications Act. I'm just saying...
how do you spell "something from Nederlands"?
:o)
"Dutch".
and have aural sex with box turtles!
Would that be sex in the ears?
I think a better solution would be this: don't use the "insert primary selection" (middle-click) feature when you really mean "insert the contents of the clipboard" (usually control-v). For many uses, just selecting something and then inserting that selection somewhere else is a "good enough" substitute for copy/paste, but it's not the same thing. When it's not "good enough" (eg. copying URLs into an already-filled address bar), use the clipboard. Granted, that's not so easy with terminal emulators sometimes, but that's a problem with the individual app, not with X.
So, please bare with me.
;o)
No, thanks. I don't like reading Slashdot naked
Juries are to judge based on the law, it's not their job to change said law (short of the Supreme court). If the law states that it is clearly, unequiviocally illegal, they will have little choice but to rule him guilty no matter how stupid, excessive and cruel they may find the law to be.
Interestingly, that's not true (at least, not in the US). Most jurors don't know it, but they have every right to rule according to their conscience -- it's called jury nullification. The catch is that the jury has to decide to do it all by themselves. A lawyer is not allowed to argue that the jury should do this. It's very uncommon, but still permissible.
Of course, IANAL. This is just my understanding of the way things work.