I just wanted to let you know that this was the funniest thing I've read on Slashdot in a while. I kept reading and reading on, wondering where the funny lyrics were, and then the final line bashed my head in. Nice job.
More importantly, where is the code in OS X written by Apple (not Parallels) to natively run Windows XP applications without emulation? I mean, he did predict that a year ago, I think. Around the time of MacWorld 06, IIRC.
That's a disadvantage to women because they (generally) take time off to have/raise kids and so on, even though the algorithm isn't specifically designed to discriminate against them.
Any good lawyer would counter this argument with, "If we allow women to take more time off between jobs, then we discriminate against men." This is why men are given paternity leave now.
GPL version X Terms and Conditions for Copying, Distribution and Modification 9:
If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
There you have it. Now, you may say, "But that says the developer has the right to do so, not the consumer!"
Wrong. Look at the preamble to see who the addressee of the license is: "The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it." Note that the addressee is the person who receives the software and may wish to modify or distribute it, as the creator of the software would already have the freedom to share and change their own software.
MySQL AB changed the license from something like "GPL v2 or any later version" to read something similar to "GPL v2" because without changing the terms, the consumer may choose any version of the license they wish, and MySQL does not necessarily want consumers choosing GPL v3 yet, for reasons many others have said above.
Before I studied in Japan a couple years ago, I bought the smallest cheap laptop I could get. I bought an Averatec 3200 Series that is 12.1" and well under 4 lbs. Now I'm shopping around for a Mac Book, and would really like to have a Mac Book Pro that was smaller than 15". The Mac Books are nice, but I wonder if I could run XGL on it (cannot with my current laptop, as it's 64MB of onboard graphics, similar to the MacBook).
The coffee was at the industry standard temperature for being served
False. There was evidence produced at trial showing that there are a great deal of chain restaurants who do not serve coffee that hot. In fact, McDonalds on QA representative testified that the temperature was beyond reasonable ("not fit for human consumption"). Also, the judge on the case (and believe it or not, judges are typically very smart, reasonable people) called McDonalds's behavior "reckless, callous and willful."
millions of cups of which being served weekly WITHOUT incident
Just because there is only one injury out of a few million servings does not invalidate the right to seek remedy from the injured person. By the way, there also was evidence showing 700 similar incidents in the years before. Thus, what you said is false. Others had sustained 3rd degree burns as well.
I could see McDonald's being forced to pay medical bills (though I still wouldn't agree with it) but punitive damages are doubly ridiculous for a company that's following industry standards in its behavior.
The lady only sued for medical bills (McDonalds had offered her only 800 dollars). In fact, she had attempted to settle with McDonalds for less than she was eventually awarded (McDonalds had refused). She did not seek punitive damages.
spilling it on yourself is not reasonable use of the product
The problem is that if she had known the dangers of this coffee (because it was dangerously and, more importantly, unreasonably hot), she might not have put the coffee in her lap. She acted in reliance of McDonalds not serving her coffee heated well above any reasonable temperature, and her reliance caused her danger. The courts found she did not receive adequate warning of the heat of the coffee. McDonalds was not completely at fault (and the court agrees with me here, by finding the lady partially responsible) of course, but they were really, really negligent in their preparation of the coffee. It doesn't matter if she did something dumb; she was held liable. But McDonalds was punished for making the coffee unsafe (which they did).
If they had made the coffee a reasonable temperature, the lady may not have suffered any third-degree burns (and this is how the plaintiffs proceeded to argue in the case). Thus, her belief was "coffee reasonable temperature, therefore safe to put between legs because if it spills, it won't cause severe damage." Then, when McDonalds behaved unreasonably by making the coffee dangerously hot, they harmed her because her reliance was based on dealing with a reasonable partner. McDonalds was not a reasonable partner.
Read up on some contract law and tort law to see how important this negligence and reasonability is to all legal dealings in the US and other common law nations.
Presumably if it had been cooler it wouldn't have had sufficient energy to leap out of the pot and swoop in for the attack?
Presumably, coffee at a normal coffee temperature is safe enough that you can take the risk of placing the cup between your legs to put cream in it. However, because the coffee was so hot that it gave her third-degree burns and hospitalized her for eight days where she received skin grafts, McDonalds had to compensate her for her hospitalization. She relied on McDonalds employing intelligent food preparation techniques, and McDonalds violated that reliance by serving unsafe coffee. She was awarded compensatory damages (reduced by her fault in the accident), and punitive damages designed to, as you would expect from the word "punitive," teach McDonalds a lesson -- don't serve coffee at 190 degrees Fahrenheit!
Seriously, I'm going to start modding down anyone who flubs up the facts of this case. The popular understanding of it is seriously flawed, and the only way to kill it is to quiet those who spread the lies, whether they know them to be lies or not.
This women have been suffering for ages now. And have been killed by all sorts of people before. Why do people suddenly care about them?
You seem to be implying (albeit unintentionally) that our only justifiable course of action is to continue to ignore their plight. Also, if you think that police have not cared about the murder of prostitutes before, I'd like to direct you to information about Jack the Ripper, who killed exclusively prostitutes in the late 1800s.
Furthermore, are you implying that we are only allowed to care about a person's murder if we also took steps to improve their lot in life? I don't know about the UK, but in the US we have something called welfare that a woman could live in on instead of prostituting herself. We also have student loans to go to college (including extremely cheap community college) and free public education. Anyone who becomes a prostitute sure doesn't become one for lack of opportunity. He or she either makes a conscious decision to get some fast money and then gets caught up in the system of crime (or, perhaps in a few cases, just really loves sex), is forced into the system through slavery, or isn't told about FAFSA opportunities.
If it is slavery, we already have laws banning that, and there is enforcement of the laws in the US. Perhaps, because there is a lot of slavery and human trafficking we don't know about (and it is difficult to detect often), there is a lot of forced prostitution we just don't know about or cannot track down.
If it is for the love of sex, well, shouldn't a woman or man be allowed to make that decision for themself?
If it is for the lack of information about financial aid, I don't know how it could be improved -- every high school I've been to in the US has posters on the walls about the program. And "welfare" is a household word in the US.
If it is someone who got caught up in the system and is now trapped in the system, this is the same as the aforementioned slavery case, and all cases have now been reduced to two: slavery or willful participation. The only one we should care about remedying (excluding moral objections to prostitution -- which not everyone has, e.g. Las Vegas and the Netherlands) is slavery/human trafficking, and I think government already actively cracks down on that sort of thing.
Thus, it seems that the US government (I cannot vouch for the UK government, as I do not know what the UK does for human trafficking within its borders) does, in fact, care about these woman (perhaps not personally, but as a whole) with regards to public policy decisions and legislation.
I mean, he acts like they are obligated to make their content available to him
Well, since the MBTA is supported by his taxes, I sure hope he has a right to complain. There is no voting with his wallet when he is forced to pay for something that doesn't work for him.
First of all, how ridiculous is it to get emotionally engaged in some website's browser support policies?
I get emotionally engaged because, as a web developer, enforcement of the standards is really, really important because without enforcing the standards, IE gets more popular, Microsoft takes more liberties with rendering, and pretty soon web pages don't work on Macs or Linux, and to make them work cross-browser costs more time and money. This happens already at my job, and it really pisses me off. And since my work is tax-supported, it makes taxpayers in Texas pay more!
The rest of your comment I'll tentatively agree with. I just wanted to point some things out about the logic in your post.
do you memeber video of bush's second election night? the streets where filled with protesters.. in fact it was the first time in history that the pres couldn't walk in because they where afraid he would be shot - no one saw this in the us..
I lived in Japan during the second election and this is the first time I've heard of this. And Japan doesn't filter their news to be pro-US, either. I saw plenty of real Iraq action on NHK that was extremely shocking when compared with the US-media-filtered news. (man, all those hyphens just beg the question, "What would German for "US-media-filtered news" be? Amerikanischmittelgefiltertenachrichten...heh...I really should learn my ancestors' mother tongue -_-).
On Steve Gibson's and Leo Laporte's Security Now ep. 42, this technique was discussed. If you want to hear more about it, this is a good podcast episode to check out.
Dude, this is Slashdot. Every American here is well aware of why much of the world dislikes/hates us. I guarantee you no one read your comment and went, "HOLY SHIT! It all makes sense, now!" Basically, your comment was just an excuse to piss on the US. Congratumalations.
To get free VoIP calls, you must top up 10 euros (+GST) every three or four months (depending on which of their brands you are using).
Well, then I guess that makes it more expensive than the 30 dollars I'll have to pay Skype to call people in the US and Canada. Or the 15 dollars I'll have to pay if I sign up before January 31.
Of course, for people in other countries, this may be a good deal. For those of us who use Skype to call family in the US, it is not.
It's not just the Justice Department. I'd like to introduce you to something called Article III of the US Constitution. And Long Arm Statutes. They give the US and state governments personal jurisdiction over foreign entities who conduct business within the many states, among other things. If you avail yourself of the privileges and protections of American courts (which Skype is doing by practicing continuous and systematic business here), then they have an obligation to obey our laws in this country.
Of course it is right that they have jurisdiction over Skype within the US. After all, how do you think US citizens are protected from foreign corporations' illegal activities within the nation?
Don't be fooled for one minute, either, that this is just some American abomination. Other countries have these kinds of laws, too. I don't know the relevant laws in other countries, but personal jurisdiction like this definitely exists in the UK, Australia and Canada, because personal jurisdiction is at a minimum a common law concept.
Of course, I do not like VoIP being meddled with by government, either. Just please don't try to make the Justice Department a bad guy here.
I'm from a small-town hunting town in Texas. I now live in Austin. I know a whole lot of gun nuts, and there is absolutely no fucking way any person I've ever met would be in favor of this law. Seriously. This entire article is idiotic. Basically, a British news conglomerate hears about some dumbass who proposes a bill in Texas and goes "Jolly rogers and crumpets! It's Texas. Of course they'll pass the bill there!" Now how's that for a broad, unfair generalization?
There are a lot of fucked up things that go on in Texas, but there are a lot of fucked up things that go on everywhere. This is shoddy journalism, and not only that: there's a fucking word misusage (not merely a misspelling) in the third sentence. It's "effect," not "affect." I don't mean to be a grammar Nazi, but I'm going to pick at this thing as much as I can. Seriously, how incredibly idiotic was this article?
There may be a lot of gun nuts in Texas, but you know what? Most of the "stupid gun nut rednecks" also hate "deformed people." No way in hell a redneck who wants more hunters is ever going to care about blind people. Before you know it, there will be Texan hunters going "they're takin our jobs!!!" etc.
Ah. You are correct, sir. One thing I erred upon is that I was thinking about rsync as a way of updating text files and as a way of updating completely changed multimedia files. I wasn't even thinking about the fact that if you add a scene to the end of an AVI file without changing its framerate, etc., merely a little metadata at the beginning of the file and then the added scene streams at the end (if there is audio-video interleave). This would have been the correct analog(ue? I'm from the US -- which is correct?) to updated log files.
If you want something with more capacity and faster recovery, a backup server with rsync and beefy hard drives.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't rsync pretty much fail for binary transfers? I was under the impression that rsync is really only useful when you have version X of something on your offsite server, and want to update it to version Y. Thus, rsync is great for logs, source code, or other text files, but is not really any more useful than if FILE not in OFFSITE_DIR:
cp FILE OFFSITE_DIR
Slashdot Mirror
I just wanted to let you know that this was the funniest thing I've read on Slashdot in a while. I kept reading and reading on, wondering where the funny lyrics were, and then the final line bashed my head in. Nice job.
More importantly, where is the code in OS X written by Apple (not Parallels) to natively run Windows XP applications without emulation? I mean, he did predict that a year ago, I think. Around the time of MacWorld 06, IIRC.
There you have it. Now, you may say, "But that says the developer has the right to do so, not the consumer!"
Wrong. Look at the preamble to see who the addressee of the license is: "The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it." Note that the addressee is the person who receives the software and may wish to modify or distribute it, as the creator of the software would already have the freedom to share and change their own software.
MySQL AB changed the license from something like "GPL v2 or any later version" to read something similar to "GPL v2" because without changing the terms, the consumer may choose any version of the license they wish, and MySQL does not necessarily want consumers choosing GPL v3 yet, for reasons many others have said above.
I'm sorry, but I was not aware that, "Oh baby, oh baby, film me with that night-vision camera," had anything to do with CCIE Storage certification.
Me too! /AOL
Before I studied in Japan a couple years ago, I bought the smallest cheap laptop I could get. I bought an Averatec 3200 Series that is 12.1" and well under 4 lbs. Now I'm shopping around for a Mac Book, and would really like to have a Mac Book Pro that was smaller than 15". The Mac Books are nice, but I wonder if I could run XGL on it (cannot with my current laptop, as it's 64MB of onboard graphics, similar to the MacBook).
Au contraire, there is a term "iPod Generation." It's the term used by those older than 30 to describe us younger than 30; cf. whippersnappers.
Read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald'
If they had made the coffee a reasonable temperature, the lady may not have suffered any third-degree burns (and this is how the plaintiffs proceeded to argue in the case). Thus, her belief was "coffee reasonable temperature, therefore safe to put between legs because if it spills, it won't cause severe damage." Then, when McDonalds behaved unreasonably by making the coffee dangerously hot, they harmed her because her reliance was based on dealing with a reasonable partner. McDonalds was not a reasonable partner.
Read up on some contract law and tort law to see how important this negligence and reasonability is to all legal dealings in the US and other common law nations.
Seriously, I'm going to start modding down anyone who flubs up the facts of this case. The popular understanding of it is seriously flawed, and the only way to kill it is to quiet those who spread the lies, whether they know them to be lies or not.
Furthermore, are you implying that we are only allowed to care about a person's murder if we also took steps to improve their lot in life? I don't know about the UK, but in the US we have something called welfare that a woman could live in on instead of prostituting herself. We also have student loans to go to college (including extremely cheap community college) and free public education. Anyone who becomes a prostitute sure doesn't become one for lack of opportunity. He or she either makes a conscious decision to get some fast money and then gets caught up in the system of crime (or, perhaps in a few cases, just really loves sex), is forced into the system through slavery, or isn't told about FAFSA opportunities.
If it is slavery, we already have laws banning that, and there is enforcement of the laws in the US. Perhaps, because there is a lot of slavery and human trafficking we don't know about (and it is difficult to detect often), there is a lot of forced prostitution we just don't know about or cannot track down.
If it is for the love of sex, well, shouldn't a woman or man be allowed to make that decision for themself?
If it is for the lack of information about financial aid, I don't know how it could be improved -- every high school I've been to in the US has posters on the walls about the program. And "welfare" is a household word in the US.
If it is someone who got caught up in the system and is now trapped in the system, this is the same as the aforementioned slavery case, and all cases have now been reduced to two: slavery or willful participation. The only one we should care about remedying (excluding moral objections to prostitution -- which not everyone has, e.g. Las Vegas and the Netherlands) is slavery/human trafficking, and I think government already actively cracks down on that sort of thing.
Thus, it seems that the US government (I cannot vouch for the UK government, as I do not know what the UK does for human trafficking within its borders) does, in fact, care about these woman (perhaps not personally, but as a whole) with regards to public policy decisions and legislation.
The rest of your comment I'll tentatively agree with. I just wanted to point some things out about the logic in your post.
On Steve Gibson's and Leo Laporte's Security Now ep. 42, this technique was discussed. If you want to hear more about it, this is a good podcast episode to check out.
Of course, for people in other countries, this may be a good deal. For those of us who use Skype to call family in the US, it is not.
It's not just the Justice Department. I'd like to introduce you to something called Article III of the US Constitution. And Long Arm Statutes. They give the US and state governments personal jurisdiction over foreign entities who conduct business within the many states, among other things. If you avail yourself of the privileges and protections of American courts (which Skype is doing by practicing continuous and systematic business here), then they have an obligation to obey our laws in this country.
Of course it is right that they have jurisdiction over Skype within the US. After all, how do you think US citizens are protected from foreign corporations' illegal activities within the nation?
Don't be fooled for one minute, either, that this is just some American abomination. Other countries have these kinds of laws, too. I don't know the relevant laws in other countries, but personal jurisdiction like this definitely exists in the UK, Australia and Canada, because personal jurisdiction is at a minimum a common law concept.
Of course, I do not like VoIP being meddled with by government, either. Just please don't try to make the Justice Department a bad guy here.
Why is this modded funny. Am I missing something?
I'm from a small-town hunting town in Texas. I now live in Austin. I know a whole lot of gun nuts, and there is absolutely no fucking way any person I've ever met would be in favor of this law. Seriously. This entire article is idiotic. Basically, a British news conglomerate hears about some dumbass who proposes a bill in Texas and goes "Jolly rogers and crumpets! It's Texas. Of course they'll pass the bill there!" Now how's that for a broad, unfair generalization?
There are a lot of fucked up things that go on in Texas, but there are a lot of fucked up things that go on everywhere. This is shoddy journalism, and not only that: there's a fucking word misusage (not merely a misspelling) in the third sentence. It's "effect," not "affect." I don't mean to be a grammar Nazi, but I'm going to pick at this thing as much as I can. Seriously, how incredibly idiotic was this article?
There may be a lot of gun nuts in Texas, but you know what? Most of the "stupid gun nut rednecks" also hate "deformed people." No way in hell a redneck who wants more hunters is ever going to care about blind people. Before you know it, there will be Texan hunters going "they're takin our jobs!!!" etc.
God dammit, this article really pissed me off.
Ah. You are correct, sir. One thing I erred upon is that I was thinking about rsync as a way of updating text files and as a way of updating completely changed multimedia files. I wasn't even thinking about the fact that if you add a scene to the end of an AVI file without changing its framerate, etc., merely a little metadata at the beginning of the file and then the added scene streams at the end (if there is audio-video interleave). This would have been the correct analog(ue? I'm from the US -- which is correct?) to updated log files.
Sorry, I meant to finish that last sentence with:
"...for binary files."
if FILE not in OFFSITE_DIR:
cp FILE OFFSITE_DIR