The chrome and safari tools are actually better, at least in one crucial bit: If I set a break point inside a function that's wrapped in a closure, I can't see the closure variables in firebug, but can in chrome.
Perhaps Common sense in this scenario would have been to simply ASK women what they find attractive in male dancing.
Which is exactly what they did. Except they removed the actual male who's doing the dancing from the equation by using those avatars. In case, you know, something about the male himself changed the females' evaluation of his dancing.
I also found this part particularly funny. Talk about a difference in corporate environment...
I particularly liked that. AT&T and Apple are partners, not a client/contractor pair or anything. AT&T has no more right to demand a specific dress code from Apple employees than Apple does to demand AT&T employees to wear jeans and turtlenecks to meetings. That the answer drips with just makes it hilarious:)
(Under English law, a lack of clarity is construed against the party seeking to rely on the lack of clarity - a rule known as "contra proferentem".)
Honest question then: Given that whatever the text says, it'll have to be interpreted by someone, at what point does "making sure the only reasonable interpretation is that which I want" become "lack of clarity"? In particular, Wikipedia says that "contra proferentem" implies that "an ambiguous term will be construed against the party that imposed its inclusion in the contract". To me, this says that if I'm not specific enough, any clause that may be reasonably read as meaning two different things can and will be ruled as meaning whichever interpretation the other party prefers.
Within a mental framework that considers nudity that offensive, their actions are perfectly justified. It's the mental framework itself I have issues with.
and quite a lot (probably most) of 'SF' explains technology with handwaving (Star Wars, 'nuf said
What with the 'mystical knights' side of the Jedi, I'd put Star Wars squarely and unapologetically in the "Fantasy/Scifi crossover" realm, as opposed to Star Trek where stuff that we today consider physically impossible are handwaved, or Arthur C Clarke-style "Hard scifi".
That being said, who wants a cock flapping around in a picture that your child will be watching on tv?
That's the point though, isn't it? When you say it like that, you're implying there's an intrinsic problem with kids and nudity on TV. I wouldn't have much of an issue with kids watching Life of Brian, though -- it's all about the portrayal.
Perhaps not the best example ever, but it was the first example of something copyrightable that I'd seriously mind people sharing that I could think of.
Well, I was specifically arguing against a more restrictive argument than that. Regarding the "stop distributing" part, tough nut. I'm not much of a fan of copyright as it stands right now, but matter of fact is, it's law. You can say "it's a crap law and I won't follow it" all you want, it still won't change that it's law, and TI is perfectly within its legal rights to demand people to stop distributing an old version of their software. Despite all the disingenuous comments that 1.1 is still being used for its own sake, fact of the matter is, the nspire is not intended to run 3rd party software, 1.1 is only actually used to allow 3rd party software to run, and that 3rd party software, even as a concept, can have a positively devastating effect on the nspire market (namely, schools and exams, where there are some pretty restrictive rules on what calculators can and can't do).
I don't think it's a matter of saying "We're better than they are" as it is a matter of saying "before you accuse us of not testing, take a good look at our investment in testing facilities". Sure, the testing procedures may have been (probably were) flawed, but that's a separate issue from the rampant accusations of them not giving a shit.
AT&T claims their dropped call rate is 1.4%. 1.4% + 1% is 2.4%. That's a 70% increase. 70% is quite a bit
If you want to twist numbers to suit your needs, we can try something else as well: 1.4% dropped calls implies 98.6% successful calls, or 97.6% for the iPhone 4. That's only a 1.01% decrease in the success rate. If it's not obvious why your way of describing the situation is flawed, look at the extreme case of 98% failure rate, you'd say 1% would only amount to a tiny difference (just over 1%!) in failure rate, while I'd say that 99% failure rate means only half as many calls go through.
(Full disclosure: I'm a mac user, on the market for a smartphone, probably getting a Desire though)
so if I make a porno with my gf for our own amusement, you're entitled to distribute it (if you can get it in the first place) because "Why should we care about copyright if the copyright holder is not even bothering to distribute the work in question?" See the problem with that?
So you basically forgive the masses for being the masses and place the blame on the people who simply act upon that very same knowledge. Responsibility isn't a burden for a handful of people, but rather one for us all to bear. The uneducated masses are fully responsible for not thinking their actions out.
Seems very suspicious, I wonder if there's someone at Mozilla with an anti-Flash agenda that wants to make Flash look more unstable than it really is?
Option 1: The plugin crash protection implementation didn't correctly account for debugging plugins. Option 2: Someone at Mozilla holds a grudge and is willing to screw around with Firefox itself to make Adobe/Flash look bad. Yeah, I agree. Option 2 is far more likely.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, exactly. Same as misplacing a SecurID token (or anything similar) locks you out of using whatever service the token is tied to. The horror.
And the quietly letting him go rather than warning others about this persons actions is ... whose policy?
I expect that quietly means "no media coverage". I guess that, internally, word spread pretty quickly why he was being let go.
The chrome and safari tools are actually better, at least in one crucial bit: If I set a break point inside a function that's wrapped in a closure, I can't see the closure variables in firebug, but can in chrome.
Do you not mean "Meet your demise in a sea of flames"? Clearly, your claims of not suffering from a degraded lexical range are mere fabrications.
Perhaps Common sense in this scenario would have been to simply ASK women what they find attractive in male dancing.
Which is exactly what they did. Except they removed the actual male who's doing the dancing from the equation by using those avatars. In case, you know, something about the male himself changed the females' evaluation of his dancing.
Oh don't worry. They'll have to sue these guys out of existence first.
What next? Saying he owns the fox in firefox?
Yeah, same as a nuke is like a grenade, only with more oomph
drips with BRAVADO that is.
I also found this part particularly funny. Talk about a difference in corporate environment...
I particularly liked that. AT&T and Apple are partners, not a client/contractor pair or anything. AT&T has no more right to demand a specific dress code from Apple employees than Apple does to demand AT&T employees to wear jeans and turtlenecks to meetings. That the answer drips with just makes it hilarious :)
(Under English law, a lack of clarity is construed against the party seeking to rely on the lack of clarity - a rule known as "contra proferentem".)
Honest question then: Given that whatever the text says, it'll have to be interpreted by someone, at what point does "making sure the only reasonable interpretation is that which I want" become "lack of clarity"? In particular, Wikipedia says that "contra proferentem" implies that "an ambiguous term will be construed against the party that imposed its inclusion in the contract". To me, this says that if I'm not specific enough, any clause that may be reasonably read as meaning two different things can and will be ruled as meaning whichever interpretation the other party prefers.
Within a mental framework that considers nudity that offensive, their actions are perfectly justified. It's the mental framework itself I have issues with.
and quite a lot (probably most) of 'SF' explains technology with handwaving (Star Wars, 'nuf said
What with the 'mystical knights' side of the Jedi, I'd put Star Wars squarely and unapologetically in the "Fantasy/Scifi crossover" realm, as opposed to Star Trek where stuff that we today consider physically impossible are handwaved, or Arthur C Clarke-style "Hard scifi".
That being said, who wants a cock flapping around in a picture that your child will be watching on tv?
That's the point though, isn't it? When you say it like that, you're implying there's an intrinsic problem with kids and nudity on TV. I wouldn't have much of an issue with kids watching Life of Brian, though -- it's all about the portrayal.
Perhaps not the best example ever, but it was the first example of something copyrightable that I'd seriously mind people sharing that I could think of.
Well, I was specifically arguing against a more restrictive argument than that. Regarding the "stop distributing" part, tough nut. I'm not much of a fan of copyright as it stands right now, but matter of fact is, it's law. You can say "it's a crap law and I won't follow it" all you want, it still won't change that it's law, and TI is perfectly within its legal rights to demand people to stop distributing an old version of their software. Despite all the disingenuous comments that 1.1 is still being used for its own sake, fact of the matter is, the nspire is not intended to run 3rd party software, 1.1 is only actually used to allow 3rd party software to run, and that 3rd party software, even as a concept, can have a positively devastating effect on the nspire market (namely, schools and exams, where there are some pretty restrictive rules on what calculators can and can't do).
Have you ever used IE? You do not need to accept anything, it all installs automatically
Dunno whether he used IE, but you sure as hell didn't bother reading the post he was replying to.
I don't think it's a matter of saying "We're better than they are" as it is a matter of saying "before you accuse us of not testing, take a good look at our investment in testing facilities". Sure, the testing procedures may have been (probably were) flawed, but that's a separate issue from the rampant accusations of them not giving a shit.
AT&T claims their dropped call rate is 1.4%. 1.4% + 1% is 2.4%. That's a 70% increase. 70% is quite a bit
If you want to twist numbers to suit your needs, we can try something else as well: 1.4% dropped calls implies 98.6% successful calls, or 97.6% for the iPhone 4. That's only a 1.01% decrease in the success rate. If it's not obvious why your way of describing the situation is flawed, look at the extreme case of 98% failure rate, you'd say 1% would only amount to a tiny difference (just over 1%!) in failure rate, while I'd say that 99% failure rate means only half as many calls go through.
(Full disclosure: I'm a mac user, on the market for a smartphone, probably getting a Desire though)
so if I make a porno with my gf for our own amusement, you're entitled to distribute it (if you can get it in the first place) because "Why should we care about copyright if the copyright holder is not even bothering to distribute the work in question?" See the problem with that?
Would those younger whipper-snappers not be able to get more than 500$ on the black market, then?
And, for an example of where "You and I" is correct, refer to the Bard: "Thou and I are too wise to woo peaceably."
So you basically forgive the masses for being the masses and place the blame on the people who simply act upon that very same knowledge. Responsibility isn't a burden for a handful of people, but rather one for us all to bear. The uneducated masses are fully responsible for not thinking their actions out.
Seems very suspicious, I wonder if there's someone at Mozilla with an anti-Flash agenda that wants to make Flash look more unstable than it really is?
Option 1: The plugin crash protection implementation didn't correctly account for debugging plugins. Option 2: Someone at Mozilla holds a grudge and is willing to screw around with Firefox itself to make Adobe/Flash look bad. Yeah, I agree. Option 2 is far more likely.
US, .is, we all s!