Did you buy all the houses? I was unable to buy the house in Windhelm for months after release because a prerequisite was another quest that simply refused to trigger. It's been fixed since though. Other than that, I've been thankful to have experienced none of the showstoppers.
No, that happens everywhere. Did you know almost every film is produced by a company, usually named the same as the film, which makes no money because it has to pay the REAL production companies 99% of the income?
Have a look at the tail end of the credits for a blockbuster film sometime, when they start rambling about the copyright owners and licensing.
-1 and -2 are not part of the actual gamespace - they will never be selected by Free Cell except by use of the "Select Game Number" function, and are designed specifically to be unsolvable.
Why's that? Our gun crime rate is virtually zero, and our rate of other armed offenses makes the entire USA look like Somalia. Oh wait, you Americans are pathologically frightened of anyone limiting your ability to acquire deadly weapons.
What the fuck are you talking about? The Germans never came near us during any of the world wars. And if they had, they would have been soundly trounced by the armed forces trying to land.
No, you didn't miss that, as it's wrong. Reading the article , it makes clear that DocumentCloud was hosting the actual emails (not just the indexing), and that many of them are still available at AFR's website (not all).
Your argument is still wrong, and mine is still valid. I don't give a shit about where the rich people keep their cash, the point is you people claim Flat Asset Taxes are fair - they are not. They tax poor people more than they do now (since poor people have assets too, and their assets don't generate income - hence they become net negative expenditures. Yeah, poor people can sure fucking afford more of those). And rich people? Well, how many assets have a > 5% return? I can safely say my retirement fund doesn't return 5%, so whacking a 5% tax on that will knock it into negative territory. Fucking nice! And the vast majority of shares and bonds return far less than that too.
I'll give you a hint on what a 5% asset tax would produce: an empty country. You'd be third world in no time, since no-one could afford to live there.
The US government doesn't patent things they caused to be invented because they "partner" with private enterprises and just give them the patent. Your government is just as bad, if not worse.
Frankly, I see nothing wrong with what CSIRO is doing. Australian taxpayer dollars shouldn't be funding research so that American companies can get it free. If anything, CSIRO should just implement a no-cost license for their patents for Australian companies.
Sure, obvious now. But was it then? No idea, now isn't then. All things considered, your posts just smack of sour grapes because for a fucking change it's an American company being shafted by a patent.
Does anyone else find it kind of concerning that the way this summary reads, the fact that DocumentCloud is Open Source somehow makes it more liable and impossible to indemnify than someone using proprietary software to do the same thing? The original article doesn't do that, so why is Slashdot?
More concerning again is that Fairfax Media is now essentially outsourcing their liability for publishing documents that they don't feel like defending themselves over - asking DocumentCloud to host them and then when DocumentCloud gets into legal trouble washing their hands of it? Wankers.
Well, as a native speaker of United Kingdom English, I will continue to consider it invalid - especially as the phrase despite its usage still reads when broken down as the exact opposite of what a typical American uses it to mean. (I will also point out that an American professor of linguistics from an American University is a flawed reference - they also speak United States English and naturally would consider virtually all Americanisms valid).
However, I was not aware that the OED included American English and concede that point.
Uh, how exactly would your ISP sign a certificate for the site with a trusted Root CA? They won't have any of those, since the Root CAs are not ISPs. The only way is if they get an intermediate CA certificate from a Root CA, and the Root CA would embed the ISPs details into that intermediate CA, making it blindingly obvious you are being MITMd.
Oh, and a "wildcard like *" is always invalid - no browser on the face of this planet would consider that acceptable, as it violates the spec.
If the website had ads to start with, one could argue... er, what's it... tortious interference I think it is. Your business model relies on ads being sent to the client, and a third party without your authorisation is removing those ads and replacing them with their own, depriving you of revenue.
I wouldn't want a precedent set on that though - it could potentially make ad-blockers illegal if it stood up in court.
That sounds like an incredibly handy precedent for all website-owning slashdotters to know about. What would be the case numbers of these court challenges?
I find it unlikely the OED accepts "could care less" as valid and correct, as it's a dictionary, and they tend not to assert anything about entire sentences. And even if they did, the OED uses Queen's English, in which "couldn't care less" is correct and "could care less" is not.
No it isn't. Could care less means, literally, "I do care at some level about this, as I have the ability to care less than I currently do about it" - it means the exact opposite of what people use it to mean. Or rather, what Americans use it to mean. Everyone else on the planet correctly says "couldn't care less" which means, literally, "my level of caring about this topic is zero. I cannot care less about this as it is physically impossible".
Slashdot Mirror
Did you buy all the houses? I was unable to buy the house in Windhelm for months after release because a prerequisite was another quest that simply refused to trigger. It's been fixed since though. Other than that, I've been thankful to have experienced none of the showstoppers.
I love how he's the sole full time employee, and still says "we" and "our".
No, that happens everywhere. Did you know almost every film is produced by a company, usually named the same as the film, which makes no money because it has to pay the REAL production companies 99% of the income?
Have a look at the tail end of the credits for a blockbuster film sometime, when they start rambling about the copyright owners and licensing.
Unfortunately, 1995 was considerably before every single one of those dates.
-1 and -2 are not part of the actual gamespace - they will never be selected by Free Cell except by use of the "Select Game Number" function, and are designed specifically to be unsolvable.
The virus is easier to remove, and doesn't tend to hold you to ransom as much.
Why's that? Our gun crime rate is virtually zero, and our rate of other armed offenses makes the entire USA look like Somalia. Oh wait, you Americans are pathologically frightened of anyone limiting your ability to acquire deadly weapons.
You die because your Pacemarker stopped working while waiting for VirusShield to load?
Joke's on you. In the right mode, Slashdot would have parsed that.
What the fuck are you talking about? The Germans never came near us during any of the world wars. And if they had, they would have been soundly trounced by the armed forces trying to land.
No, you didn't miss that, as it's wrong. Reading the article , it makes clear that DocumentCloud was hosting the actual emails (not just the indexing), and that many of them are still available at AFR's website (not all).
Your argument is still wrong, and mine is still valid. I don't give a shit about where the rich people keep their cash, the point is you people claim Flat Asset Taxes are fair - they are not. They tax poor people more than they do now (since poor people have assets too, and their assets don't generate income - hence they become net negative expenditures. Yeah, poor people can sure fucking afford more of those). And rich people? Well, how many assets have a > 5% return? I can safely say my retirement fund doesn't return 5%, so whacking a 5% tax on that will knock it into negative territory. Fucking nice! And the vast majority of shares and bonds return far less than that too.
I'll give you a hint on what a 5% asset tax would produce: an empty country. You'd be third world in no time, since no-one could afford to live there.
I'm not going to disagree with you there. Quantum anything is just convoluted.
Yup, you are. I've heard it time and time again from broadband network engineers here.
The US government doesn't patent things they caused to be invented because they "partner" with private enterprises and just give them the patent. Your government is just as bad, if not worse.
Frankly, I see nothing wrong with what CSIRO is doing. Australian taxpayer dollars shouldn't be funding research so that American companies can get it free. If anything, CSIRO should just implement a no-cost license for their patents for Australian companies.
Sure, obvious now. But was it then? No idea, now isn't then. All things considered, your posts just smack of sour grapes because for a fucking change it's an American company being shafted by a patent.
Does anyone else find it kind of concerning that the way this summary reads, the fact that DocumentCloud is Open Source somehow makes it more liable and impossible to indemnify than someone using proprietary software to do the same thing? The original article doesn't do that, so why is Slashdot?
More concerning again is that Fairfax Media is now essentially outsourcing their liability for publishing documents that they don't feel like defending themselves over - asking DocumentCloud to host them and then when DocumentCloud gets into legal trouble washing their hands of it? Wankers.
Well, as a native speaker of United Kingdom English, I will continue to consider it invalid - especially as the phrase despite its usage still reads when broken down as the exact opposite of what a typical American uses it to mean. (I will also point out that an American professor of linguistics from an American University is a flawed reference - they also speak United States English and naturally would consider virtually all Americanisms valid).
However, I was not aware that the OED included American English and concede that point.
Uh, how exactly would your ISP sign a certificate for the site with a trusted Root CA? They won't have any of those, since the Root CAs are not ISPs. The only way is if they get an intermediate CA certificate from a Root CA, and the Root CA would embed the ISPs details into that intermediate CA, making it blindingly obvious you are being MITMd.
Oh, and a "wildcard like *" is always invalid - no browser on the face of this planet would consider that acceptable, as it violates the spec.
That - literally - makes no sense whatsoever.
So you Americans DO speak a completely different language!
My pet hate job title - the one that doesn't really explain what the job actually is.
By which I mean, that's my job title too. And even I don't know what it is.
If the website had ads to start with, one could argue... er, what's it... tortious interference I think it is. Your business model relies on ads being sent to the client, and a third party without your authorisation is removing those ads and replacing them with their own, depriving you of revenue.
I wouldn't want a precedent set on that though - it could potentially make ad-blockers illegal if it stood up in court.
That sounds like an incredibly handy precedent for all website-owning slashdotters to know about. What would be the case numbers of these court challenges?
I find it unlikely the OED accepts "could care less" as valid and correct, as it's a dictionary, and they tend not to assert anything about entire sentences. And even if they did, the OED uses Queen's English, in which "couldn't care less" is correct and "could care less" is not.
No it isn't. Could care less means, literally, "I do care at some level about this, as I have the ability to care less than I currently do about it" - it means the exact opposite of what people use it to mean. Or rather, what Americans use it to mean. Everyone else on the planet correctly says "couldn't care less" which means, literally, "my level of caring about this topic is zero. I cannot care less about this as it is physically impossible".