Shorting of all kinds should be banned. It is an abuse of the property rights that form the foundation of capitalism.
Naked shorting is an abuse, I go along with that because you can do it without any investment at all, and people can naked short more stock than actually exists. But plain short selling requires you to borrow those stocks, they must actually exist, they can't be loaned multiple times invisibly, and you have presumably put up some collateral of some kind or no one would loan you the stocks, even if it is just your reputation.
See my response to the first idiot. You too would rather argue the details of one particular encroachment rather than actually follow the right process of amending the constitution, as if your particular encroachment is perfectly proper and not a sneaky endrun, but I doubt very much you approve of others and their particular endruns.
Idiot. Why don't you read what I wrote? I clearly said that encroaching on the constitution for one reason encourages others to encroach for their own reasons, and that the proper way to change the constitution is to actually go thru the amendment process.
And all you want to argue about is one of the encroachments? Feh.
Quite simply, the point of the second amendment is for self protection, both against bad guys and against a government which is literally out of control. Anyone who argues otherwise is quibbling over nothing because the truth scares them. The arms protected are exactly what a policeman or ordinary infantry soldier carries. Indeed, it is quite reasonable to allow cannon, since merchant ships of the time had cannon not owned by governments, and so did individuals for the common protection.
If gun haters want to argue whether it is still useful to think of an armed uprising against a government, or even whether it makes sense to allow guns in crowded cities, the solution is not to circumvent the constitution in sneaky ways, the solution is to *change* the constitution. There is even a procedure for that which has been used a couple dozen times.
If the restrictions put on the second amendment were applied to freedom of the press, the only press protected would be manually powered flat bed presses. No power presses, no rotary presses, no newspapers with circulation over a few thousand, no internet, no copy machines, no private printers on private computers. Is that what you want?
It works the other way too. If the degradations put on searches and habeas corpus were applied to guns, we'd have it worse than nowadays. You think magazine capacity is a problem? Wait until you can't even have a flintlock or cap gun or knives with sharp edges or points.
What really burns me up about those who wish to change the constitution thru backdoor sneaky underhanded methods is that they set a precedent for other sneaky backdoor amendments, such as the recent degrading of protection from search and seizure, habeas corpus, etc.
Dammit, there's a process for amending the constitution! If you don't like it the way it is, change it properly, have a proper discussion, but don't sneak around, because all you do is reduce respect for the process and make it easier for the other guys to do the same thing in ways you don't like.
Every time I hear Republicans defend the degradation of the constitution by the Bush regime, I always wonder what they would think of Hillary having the same power they want Bush to have now. Ditto for Democrats who hate guns -- how would you like it if Reagan / Bush / McCain limited your favorite rights exactly as you have limited the second amendment?
Most companies have a decidedly narrow view of the pond they want to be king of, that it is a zero sum game and they can only make money at the expense of the other players. Google thinks they can expand the pond and make money that way. Thus Android, maps, mail, everything they do... they want to target ads to you based on what is your interest of the moment. If they can learn what your interest is on the cell phone -- by getting you to use google maps and mail on the cell phone -- they can increase the pond and make more money that way.
Or maybe a more precise explanation is that they want to change the pond entirely, from selling apps and selling untargeted ads to selling targeted as, with free apps drawing people over to the new pond.
Google has a much longer outlook on how to make money, mainly because everybody else is still circled around the old pond. It will be interesting to see how their "Do No Evil" motto morphs as the new pond becomes the In place.
Small airplane pilots can't even wear chutes; the harnesses are too big and can't be tightened up enough. Plus the canopy itself is too big and would float so slowly that they might not land for hours, if at all.
You might thank that big plane pilots have the opposite problem, but not really, because cockpit size generally limits their size to less than big enough to cause problems. Of course, open cockpit planes allow tall pilots, but even so, they can't really get too tall, or their thighs wouldn't fit inside either.
So it's really just a small plane pilot problem. What the FAA ought to do is ban booster seats and mandate that if your feet can't reach the rudder pedals naturally, you don't get to fly.
Not to mention that customers with the money and interest to do this are the very kind of customers stores should want to treat right and have come back. This scanning is pointless (but probably still fun) for a can of beans. It only makes sense for expensive stuff.
So let me get this straight. 2D is easier for computers to read, and the carrot up to now has been that 2D barcodes, and only 2D barcodes, enable current cell phones to process barcodes, thus reaching a big audience. In spite of that carrot and the proliferation of cell phones with cameras, there are very very few 2D barcodes in use. This carrot seems to be not very tasty.
Now along comes a phone which can process the older 1D barcodes, and the response is... wait for it... it ought to include 2D capability to broaden its reach and to give manufactuerers reason to use 2D barcodes, even thought the current crop of cellphones which can process 2D barcodes have not encouraged proliferation of said 2D barcodes.
Is that what you are saying?
I don't understand. Why fret over a capability that hasn't been used in spite of being the only game in town, when improved cellphones render it unnecessary?
If I were developing an app which covered every existing product, why would I take more time and money to add a capability which is unused and no longer necessary?
You're the illogical one. The point of TFA is that almost all products have old fashioned 1D barcdoes abd very few have the new 2D barcodes. What benefit is to be gained from adding 2D capability when so few 2D barcodes exist?
Furthermore, 2D barcodes encode info that the app in question (GoCart/ShopSavvy) doesn't use. The app uses that barcode to look up dynamic info, such as prices and availability on the web and locally (based on your current location from the GPS), and user reviews. You can't put dynamic or user content in a 2D code, only what the manufacturer wanted you to know when the product was packaged -- the best you can do is a URL to a site controlled by the manufacturer, which may or may not still exist.
So, yes, the CueCat was very cool and useful and I still use mine. Problem is, I found absolutely ZERO value in what they were actually trying to use it for.
And therein lies the tale of why Android just might have a chance -- IIRC, CueCat did their best to stop people from using it in ways other than what it was sold for. They sued some people, IIRC, tried to obfuscate the data format, had a unique key from each cuecat sent back with the rest of the data for tracking individual cuecats, and generally acted like dickheads and thus went under.
The device, attached to the fuel line of a car's engine near the fuel injector, creates an electric field that thins fuel, reducing its viscosity so that smaller droplets are injected into the engine. Because combustion starts at the droplet surface, smaller droplets lead to cleaner and more efficient combustion.
Nothing to do with vaporizing the fuel before it hits the injectors.
But if you pay $99 to join the developer program, that's a contract, not a click-thru EULA. Contracts involve something of value from both parties, and that $99 is your agreeing to the contract.
But if this rejection letter NDA is part of the rejection letter, not part of what you agreed to on that $99 contract, I doubt it is enforceable. But on the third hand, if you publish the rejection letter, no doubt they will cancel the contract and you would have to sue to get it reinstated. I wonder if it is like making a disturbance in a movie theater, if they refund your $99 when they kick you out.
How soon do you expect that? I personally would be fine with current SSH on the phone and screen on the remote system; scp would be nice but not necessary.
If it can run SSH, whether native or third party, and if there is some way to verify it's a real SSH, not infested by DHS or other snoops, that would be great.
Slashdot Mirror
Shorting of all kinds should be banned. It is an abuse of the property rights that form the foundation of capitalism.
Naked shorting is an abuse, I go along with that because you can do it without any investment at all, and people can naked short more stock than actually exists. But plain short selling requires you to borrow those stocks, they must actually exist, they can't be loaned multiple times invisibly, and you have presumably put up some collateral of some kind or no one would loan you the stocks, even if it is just your reputation.
As if naked shorters hold on to "their" stocks long enough to issue dividends.
See my response to the first idiot. You too would rather argue the details of one particular encroachment rather than actually follow the right process of amending the constitution, as if your particular encroachment is perfectly proper and not a sneaky endrun, but I doubt very much you approve of others and their particular endruns.
Idiot. Why don't you read what I wrote? I clearly said that encroaching on the constitution for one reason encourages others to encroach for their own reasons, and that the proper way to change the constitution is to actually go thru the amendment process.
And all you want to argue about is one of the encroachments? Feh.
Quite simply, the point of the second amendment is for self protection, both against bad guys and against a government which is literally out of control. Anyone who argues otherwise is quibbling over nothing because the truth scares them. The arms protected are exactly what a policeman or ordinary infantry soldier carries. Indeed, it is quite reasonable to allow cannon, since merchant ships of the time had cannon not owned by governments, and so did individuals for the common protection.
If gun haters want to argue whether it is still useful to think of an armed uprising against a government, or even whether it makes sense to allow guns in crowded cities, the solution is not to circumvent the constitution in sneaky ways, the solution is to *change* the constitution. There is even a procedure for that which has been used a couple dozen times.
If the restrictions put on the second amendment were applied to freedom of the press, the only press protected would be manually powered flat bed presses. No power presses, no rotary presses, no newspapers with circulation over a few thousand, no internet, no copy machines, no private printers on private computers. Is that what you want?
It works the other way too. If the degradations put on searches and habeas corpus were applied to guns, we'd have it worse than nowadays. You think magazine capacity is a problem? Wait until you can't even have a flintlock or cap gun or knives with sharp edges or points.
What really burns me up about those who wish to change the constitution thru backdoor sneaky underhanded methods is that they set a precedent for other sneaky backdoor amendments, such as the recent degrading of protection from search and seizure, habeas corpus, etc.
Dammit, there's a process for amending the constitution! If you don't like it the way it is, change it properly, have a proper discussion, but don't sneak around, because all you do is reduce respect for the process and make it easier for the other guys to do the same thing in ways you don't like.
Every time I hear Republicans defend the degradation of the constitution by the Bush regime, I always wonder what they would think of Hillary having the same power they want Bush to have now. Ditto for Democrats who hate guns -- how would you like it if Reagan / Bush / McCain limited your favorite rights exactly as you have limited the second amendment?
Most companies have a decidedly narrow view of the pond they want to be king of, that it is a zero sum game and they can only make money at the expense of the other players. Google thinks they can expand the pond and make money that way. Thus Android, maps, mail, everything they do ... they want to target ads to you based on what is your interest of the moment. If they can learn what your interest is on the cell phone -- by getting you to use google maps and mail on the cell phone -- they can increase the pond and make more money that way.
Or maybe a more precise explanation is that they want to change the pond entirely, from selling apps and selling untargeted ads to selling targeted as, with free apps drawing people over to the new pond.
Google has a much longer outlook on how to make money, mainly because everybody else is still circled around the old pond. It will be interesting to see how their "Do No Evil" motto morphs as the new pond becomes the In place.
Small airplane pilots can't even wear chutes; the harnesses are too big and can't be tightened up enough. Plus the canopy itself is too big and would float so slowly that they might not land for hours, if at all.
You might thank that big plane pilots have the opposite problem, but not really, because cockpit size generally limits their size to less than big enough to cause problems. Of course, open cockpit planes allow tall pilots, but even so, they can't really get too tall, or their thighs wouldn't fit inside either.
So it's really just a small plane pilot problem. What the FAA ought to do is ban booster seats and mandate that if your feet can't reach the rudder pedals naturally, you don't get to fly.
But this wouldn't help with Ercoupes.
Not to mention that customers with the money and interest to do this are the very kind of customers stores should want to treat right and have come back. This scanning is pointless (but probably still fun) for a can of beans. It only makes sense for expensive stuff.
So let me get this straight. 2D is easier for computers to read, and the carrot up to now has been that 2D barcodes, and only 2D barcodes, enable current cell phones to process barcodes, thus reaching a big audience. In spite of that carrot and the proliferation of cell phones with cameras, there are very very few 2D barcodes in use. This carrot seems to be not very tasty.
Now along comes a phone which can process the older 1D barcodes, and the response is ... wait for it ... it ought to include 2D capability to broaden its reach and to give manufactuerers reason to use 2D barcodes, even thought the current crop of cellphones which can process 2D barcodes have not encouraged proliferation of said 2D barcodes.
Is that what you are saying?
I don't understand. Why fret over a capability that hasn't been used in spite of being the only game in town, when improved cellphones render it unnecessary?
If I were developing an app which covered every existing product, why would I take more time and money to add a capability which is unused and no longer necessary?
You're the illogical one. The point of TFA is that almost all products have old fashioned 1D barcdoes abd very few have the new 2D barcodes. What benefit is to be gained from adding 2D capability when so few 2D barcodes exist?
Furthermore, 2D barcodes encode info that the app in question (GoCart/ShopSavvy) doesn't use. The app uses that barcode to look up dynamic info, such as prices and availability on the web and locally (based on your current location from the GPS), and user reviews. You can't put dynamic or user content in a 2D code, only what the manufacturer wanted you to know when the product was packaged -- the best you can do is a URL to a site controlled by the manufacturer, which may or may not still exist.
So, yes, the CueCat was very cool and useful and I still use mine. Problem is, I found absolutely ZERO value in what they were actually trying to use it for.
And therein lies the tale of why Android just might have a chance -- IIRC, CueCat did their best to stop people from using it in ways other than what it was sold for. They sued some people, IIRC, tried to obfuscate the data format, had a unique key from each cuecat sent back with the rest of the data for tracking individual cuecats, and generally acted like dickheads and thus went under.
The device, attached to the fuel line of a car's engine near the fuel injector, creates an electric field that thins fuel, reducing its viscosity so that smaller droplets are injected into the engine. Because combustion starts at the droplet surface, smaller droplets lead to cleaner and more efficient combustion.
Nothing to do with vaporizing the fuel before it hits the injectors.
And more were killed in the conventional firebombing of Tokyo.
A cross-platform toolchain
This toolchain is in Java, which, for all its problems, is a huge step better than Apple's Objective C.
I think you knew that, but I just want to make it clear to other readers.
Did you pay them $99 for the SDK? Doesn't that make it a contract, not a mere EULA?
But if you pay $99 to join the developer program, that's a contract, not a click-thru EULA. Contracts involve something of value from both parties, and that $99 is your agreeing to the contract.
But if this rejection letter NDA is part of the rejection letter, not part of what you agreed to on that $99 contract, I doubt it is enforceable. But on the third hand, if you publish the rejection letter, no doubt they will cancel the contract and you would have to sue to get it reinstated. I wonder if it is like making a disturbance in a movie theater, if they refund your $99 when they kick you out.
P.S. Looks great! Didn't mean to ignore that aspect :-)
How soon do you expect that? I personally would be fine with current SSH on the phone and screen on the remote system; scp would be nice but not necessary.
If it can run SSH, whether native or third party, and if there is some way to verify it's a real SSH, not infested by DHS or other snoops, that would be great.
What if you suffer from PTSD induced in Second Life? Do they have a Virtual Virtual?
If it helps legless vets, more power to them. You sound like the kind who spit on returning Vietnam vets.
... half dozen of the other.
You lose. His goes to 12.
The good news is, it is possible to survive nuclear war for at least 100 days. Bring it on! They were mere aliens -- we puny humans can do better.
Maybe. I haven't looked at it since that first time lo so many years ago, and I wasn't interested in verifying it.
Heck, you and everybody else understood me anyway, so the rest of your complaint is just sour grapes, methinks.
Nyaah nyaah!