Unless there's a way to get Embryonic Stem Cells from a fetus without harming it, it does kill a fetus. That's not politics. That's a fact.
Funny I thought taking a fetus from the womb and throwing it in the trash was killing it. Oh wait, it is! The left is just asking that before we do that, we take some stem cells from the fetus when the woman who the fetus was removed from agrees. The right loves to ignore that fact and what they say is just political grandstanding.
I'm just trying to figure out how you turned this into a criticism of america... that was smooth man, I got to the end and had to remind myself that I don't have to register a blog in my real name..
If commonly using counter-intuitive interfaces is a qualification to working for Google, then I think a lot of people would be happpy not to qualify. The sentence structure is counterintuitive to how the human mind works. No wonder someone made a mistake when reading it.
OK so you're writing a GPLv2 app. One of your dependent libraries accepts a contribution from a GPLv3 source - making it GPLv3 automatically. Your code is GPLv2 only (no 'or later' clause) and therefore can no longer use that library - and you can't track down all the contributors to change the license.
OK so you're writing a closed source app. One of your dependent libraries accepts a contribution from a GPLv2 source - making it GPLv2 automatically. Your code is closed source only and therefore can no longer use that library - and you can't track down all the contributors to change the license.
GPLv2 stopped people from using GPLv2 software unless they wished to license it under GPLv2. GPLv3 is simply doing the same.
Maybe, but you have the choice of whether you want to enter the bar and give your fingerprint, or not enter the bar and not give your fingerprint. Just as the bar has freedom to chose under what conditions it will allow people to enter the bar. This is not a civil liberties issue.
It is illegal for banks to publish your bank accounts. In the same manner, I'd prefer it to be illegal for companies that collect my fingerprints to share such data except with the police.
The fingerprint blacklist is held by the publicans (bar owners) themselves, and shared with the other pubs in the town.
Hmmm, I had thought that the fingerprints would be given to the government who would then distribute them to the other bars. That's actually a bit more disturbing IMO. I don't know if I like the idea of companies sharing my personal information, such as fingerprints.
The means involve interference with the peaceful commerce of all citizens; that cannot be justified on any grounds whatsoever. Case closed.
So do you object to businesses being forced to make sure they aren't selling smokes or alcohol to underaged children (let's ignore backward countries where they make you wait until you've been an adult for a few years;))? After all, doesn't that involve interference with the peaceful commerce of citizens (albeit not all, although it does include numerous adults)? If not, what's different? What about laws that require you obtain a liquor license to run a bar? Don't they interfere with the peaceful commerce of all citizens?
They are not bad things. But the ends do not justify the means.
What about if you think of it like this: A law has been introduced that makes owners of places like bars to be responsible for ensuring they don't frequently sell alcohol to people who then commit crimes while drunk. Is that such a bad thing? The law is making owners be more responsible (without going all draconian and charging them with accessory to murder)? Now the law comes with a suggestion on how you can do this. If you follow their suggestion, they'll let you off the hook with the new law. Why do they do this? Because they believe their suggestion will ensure you follow the law anyway. And if it doesn't, that's a failure on their part for suggesting it, not yours.
Sounds like my father. He's always more then happy to explain how to get somewhere (with instructions like "go to the end of road X and then turn left." And yet he never gives me instructions on how to get home, I think he's been trying to give me a hint for some time now.
The fact that the framed person also didn't have his fingerprints on the bullets would support his claim of being framed. As could the fact his fingerprints possibly weren't on the trigger (can they get a fingerprint from such a small surface area?) or the other thingy you pull down to cock it.
People can, and do, get framed all the time. You don't need to have your finger prints on record to get framed. The possibility of being framed sounds like a flimsy reason not to have finger prints recorded.
For a second I'm going to ignore that the government is collecting fingerprints on everyone. Why is this law so bad? All it does is: * Allow for criminals who've willingly consumed alcohol to be caught quicker in certain circumstances. * Force bars to stop serving alcohol to people who habitually break the law when drunk * Allow for witnesses necessary in solving a crime to be found easier.
These are all bad things why?
I know, I know. Then we move onto the fact that the government is collecting finger prints. But then again, I do wonder at why people having your finger prints on record is such a bad thing? It's not as if they have your pin number to your bank account. I know the American constitution has a clause against the government having it in this particular instance, but instead of treating it as a religious text, why not think about whether or not the police and businesses having your finger prints on record is such a bad thing? If you're worried about privacy concerns (employer gets a P.I. to see if you entered a strip club, using the fingerprints they have of you) surely there are easier ways for them to keep tabs on you? All we need is a law to stop businesses from using the fingerprints in all but very specific instances.
The only time I can think of this being bad is when the police catch you in an illegal brothel. But how about instead of breaking the law, you work to have the law overturned first?
My knee-jerk reaction was "well I won't be going to American any time soon then." However as I'm not planning on commiting any crimes while in the foreseeable future, I'm certainly willing to hand over my fingerprints to the American police. This isn't a "if you have nothing to hide what's the problem?" post, but "I have nothing to hide so I have no problem with it."
This proves Superman was raised by Indians 10,000 years ago (so no, he wouldn't have fought us white men going to America). Wonder what he did back then. Did he help plant many of the religions? Was he still a moral person, or was he a pirate? Did he travel the world, or stay with his tribe? Sounds like a pretty interesting Elseworlds story to me. Although the writers would probably ruin it and have an Indian Lex Luthor discover Kryptonite.
If it's open source why was Microsoft worried about legal action from Adobe for including the ability to create PDFs in their office program? If it's open source, surely that allows them to write to it? Or is Microsoft barred from including the ability to create any open source file type in their Office program?
Thing is, you're probably trolling. The disinformation has been spread quite a bit in this article, and refuted every time.
Slashdot Mirror
yet.
If commonly using counter-intuitive interfaces is a qualification to working for Google, then I think a lot of people would be happpy not to qualify. The sentence structure is counterintuitive to how the human mind works. No wonder someone made a mistake when reading it.
Nope, you trolled. Nice try, please roll again.
You're a whole new brand of naive if you think that FF is more compatible out there than IE.
It's more compatible for the websites I visit. Fortunately important websites like my banking website is compatible with Firefox.
Opera might be better
It isn't. I used it for a few months and I found there were no functional improvements, and it was quite a bit slower. So I've come back to Firefox.
It's a consequence of having the right to re-distribute the source code.
Sounds like unfettered competition to me.
OK so you're writing a closed source app. One of your dependent libraries accepts a contribution from a GPLv2 source - making it GPLv2 automatically. Your code is closed source only and therefore can no longer use that library - and you can't track down all the contributors to change the license.
GPLv2 stopped people from using GPLv2 software unless they wished to license it under GPLv2. GPLv3 is simply doing the same.
Maybe, but you have the choice of whether you want to enter the bar and give your fingerprint, or not enter the bar and not give your fingerprint. Just as the bar has freedom to chose under what conditions it will allow people to enter the bar. This is not a civil liberties issue.
It is illegal for banks to publish your bank accounts. In the same manner, I'd prefer it to be illegal for companies that collect my fingerprints to share such data except with the police.
The fingerprint blacklist is held by the publicans (bar owners) themselves, and shared with the other pubs in the town.
Hmmm, I had thought that the fingerprints would be given to the government who would then distribute them to the other bars. That's actually a bit more disturbing IMO. I don't know if I like the idea of companies sharing my personal information, such as fingerprints.
So do you object to businesses being forced to make sure they aren't selling smokes or alcohol to underaged children (let's ignore backward countries where they make you wait until you've been an adult for a few years
What about if you think of it like this: A law has been introduced that makes owners of places like bars to be responsible for ensuring they don't frequently sell alcohol to people who then commit crimes while drunk. Is that such a bad thing? The law is making owners be more responsible (without going all draconian and charging them with accessory to murder)? Now the law comes with a suggestion on how you can do this. If you follow their suggestion, they'll let you off the hook with the new law. Why do they do this? Because they believe their suggestion will ensure you follow the law anyway. And if it doesn't, that's a failure on their part for suggesting it, not yours.
Sounds like my father. He's always more then happy to explain how to get somewhere (with instructions like "go to the end of road X and then turn left." And yet he never gives me instructions on how to get home, I think he's been trying to give me a hint for some time now.
The fact that the framed person also didn't have his fingerprints on the bullets would support his claim of being framed. As could the fact his fingerprints possibly weren't on the trigger (can they get a fingerprint from such a small surface area?) or the other thingy you pull down to cock it.
People can, and do, get framed all the time. You don't need to have your finger prints on record to get framed. The possibility of being framed sounds like a flimsy reason not to have finger prints recorded.
Sounds like you have a problem with other laws rather then getting finger-printed.
For a second I'm going to ignore that the government is collecting fingerprints on everyone. Why is this law so bad? All it does is:
* Allow for criminals who've willingly consumed alcohol to be caught quicker in certain circumstances.
* Force bars to stop serving alcohol to people who habitually break the law when drunk
* Allow for witnesses necessary in solving a crime to be found easier.
These are all bad things why?
I know, I know. Then we move onto the fact that the government is collecting finger prints. But then again, I do wonder at why people having your finger prints on record is such a bad thing? It's not as if they have your pin number to your bank account. I know the American constitution has a clause against the government having it in this particular instance, but instead of treating it as a religious text, why not think about whether or not the police and businesses having your finger prints on record is such a bad thing? If you're worried about privacy concerns (employer gets a P.I. to see if you entered a strip club, using the fingerprints they have of you) surely there are easier ways for them to keep tabs on you? All we need is a law to stop businesses from using the fingerprints in all but very specific instances.
The only time I can think of this being bad is when the police catch you in an illegal brothel. But how about instead of breaking the law, you work to have the law overturned first?
My knee-jerk reaction was "well I won't be going to American any time soon then." However as I'm not planning on commiting any crimes while in the foreseeable future, I'm certainly willing to hand over my fingerprints to the American police. This isn't a "if you have nothing to hide what's the problem?" post, but "I have nothing to hide so I have no problem with it."
What about screencaps of someone's favourite hentai?
Sounds pretty cool to me :) I hope Slashdot doesn't fix it.
Customer: Where can I locate this sexy girlfriend?
Agent: Just go to firefox.com
Customer: But.... I can't. My internet is broken. I already told you that.
Agent: Aaaaah... I gotta go. Bye.
This proves Superman was raised by Indians 10,000 years ago (so no, he wouldn't have fought us white men going to America). Wonder what he did back then. Did he help plant many of the religions? Was he still a moral person, or was he a pirate? Did he travel the world, or stay with his tribe? Sounds like a pretty interesting Elseworlds story to me. Although the writers would probably ruin it and have an Indian Lex Luthor discover Kryptonite.
I can gurantee my lawn doesn't get that. Sure, it looks like shit. But it's alive.
MS and anyone else can use the PDF license to read and write PDFs all they want.
And I wonder what sort of limitations that license has.
I don't know if you're serious or desperately trying for a funny. Because you're post doesn't make sense when parsed into English.
If it's open source why was Microsoft worried about legal action from Adobe for including the ability to create PDFs in their office program? If it's open source, surely that allows them to write to it? Or is Microsoft barred from including the ability to create any open source file type in their Office program?
Thing is, you're probably trolling. The disinformation has been spread quite a bit in this article, and refuted every time.