I'm confused. This is about power generation, not power storage. I don't think there are going to be any batteries capable of storing a lifetime's worth of energy anytime soon.
I never claimed to have not made a mistake, in fact I said so several times. I just said that people should lighten up. I'm ok with that. I'm ok with being frustrating too.
It seems though that mostly causality decided that I had to bow to his greatness at catching a mistake, apologize profusely, and then thank him for being an ass about it. So I was an ass in return. He should really lighten up.
You seem obsessed.
I made a mistake. Most people would just move on. You seem to feel the need to dig and dig because your self worth is derived from thinking about how you aren't ignorant and how much smarter you are than random people on the internet. My ego is ok with making a mistake. Your ego can't seem to let go and move on.
Y U SO MAD THO?
you seem to misunderstand my position here. I'm mostly amused.
Telling you to lighten up is just that - telling you to relax. My ego is intact because it isn't derived from arguing on the internet. Apparently I'm the only one capable of not being angry at random people people on the internet for their sins of semantics and grammar.
thanks for catching my mistake though, bro!
I can tell the difference between when I need to be an asshole at work vs choosing to be an asshole to everyone I meet.
You're not having a discussion at work, no project depends on this, and one guy using the wrong word doesn't hurt anyone. Try and lighten up.
Replace the word patent with copyright and re-read the comment. does it still make sense? then absorb it and move on. Does it not make sense? then it isn't worth getting into. http://lolpie.com/images/archive/content/1/3/lol-why-u-mad-tho-U9bbc.jpg
the fact that you turned this into a mac vs pc argument allows me to immediately dismiss this. I can only assume you knew how ridiculous this was, and thats why you posted AC
dude, it was the wrong word but the sentiment remains true. If you go after every person on the internet you're going to be spending your life fixing spelling mistakes and semantics. Just absorb the relevant information and move on.
do you always act like you program? do you go around at parties, telling people they're walking around in a misty clouded universe that only you can see through? Does the effort of holding the stick in your rectum cause you to be this annoying all the time?
its people like you that need to lighten up.
steal some ui elements? are you crazy? thats like, 14 bajillion dollars worth of damage in patent infringing tech. Injunctions would be issued, and in the end HP would own huge portions of google.
well, not really, but still. I'm sure the results would be ridiculous.
I'm not talking about conscious cues, although there are those as well. we are strongly affected by our surroundings, and our perceptions of them. I'm not talking about your desk - I'm talking about environment. Even if you don't notice it, which I don't believe btw, you notice it.
a positive work environment that makes you proud to come to the office is a great 'feature' when you're hiring people to come work their little souls out at all hours of the day and night. Part of that is showing up to work and not seeing dirtiness, drabness, etc.
Your environment gives you huge cues as to your behaviour.
either all the people who work at amazon saying that bezos is a micromanager are right and thats the way bezos wants it, or you're right because you read this on the internet.
I think your interpretation of what the charter allows you to do is overly broad. By your interpretation I can walk into your house and take pictures of you, since the charter gives you no rights of privacy while my right to photograph is in charter, and technically in the charter you have no right to a house either.
I'm going to stop arguing here, because I think you're wrong and nothing will convince you. You've taken the charter and done a harry potter 'reductio ad absurdum' on it, and come up with a similar work of fiction.
as well the Canadian Bill of Rights (passed 1960 and still in force)
1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;,
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;,
(c) freedom of religion;,
(d) freedom of speech;,
(e) freedom of assembly and association; and,
(f) freedom of the press.,
and the charter does not mean that other rights do not exist, (section 26 of the charter)
property ownership does not override rights, but charter rights do not rule out other rights either.
quote:
"The Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of Harrison v. Carswell,(3) commented upon property rights in Canadian law as follows:
Ango-Canadian jurisprudence has traditionally recognized, as a fundamental freedom, the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof, of any interest therein, save by due process of law.(4)
Section 26 of the Charter stipulates that:
The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights and freedoms that exist in Canada."
your claims that charter rights supercede a persons right to property and the security of their property are not how courts have ruled, at all, ever.
As it was pointed out multiple times to you, his rights to make rules on his property cannot override the rules of the society at large.
except your infringing on his charter rights on his property. Its the reason why abortion protesters have to stand outside the property, even though they certainly have a right to protest. Just because you have a right to photograph doesn't mean you have a right to photograph in someone else's place of business.
I already pointed out that the very definitions of a "camera" and "taking pictures" make such rules systematically unenforceable and thus their enforcement would have to be, by definition, completely arbitrary - something that is clearly not allowed under the Charter.
A sign saying "no photography", or a guard saying you can't take pictures, is neither unenforceable nor vague. I do photography. If you decide your right to photograph is more important than the right of the store owner to decide whether or not someone takes photos in his store, you will soon be asked to leave. If you still stick around, you will be arrested and charged with trespassing, and it will never see the supreme court because your charter rights don't necessarily invalidate other people's rights.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm confused. This is about power generation, not power storage. I don't think there are going to be any batteries capable of storing a lifetime's worth of energy anytime soon.
and power their vehicles at the same time. My Ford Fusion gets 7km/chocolate bar!
been on slashdot long?
I never claimed to have not made a mistake, in fact I said so several times. I just said that people should lighten up. I'm ok with that. I'm ok with being frustrating too. It seems though that mostly causality decided that I had to bow to his greatness at catching a mistake, apologize profusely, and then thank him for being an ass about it. So I was an ass in return. He should really lighten up.
the jumper terminals they install on your neck are a pita when you have to put a sweater on, though.
lol that would be true if we werent first to file. is that patents or copyrights again?
...wow. you are indeed angry. I bet you don't pull aesop out for just anyone. I feel a little honored, in fact.
You seem obsessed. I made a mistake. Most people would just move on. You seem to feel the need to dig and dig because your self worth is derived from thinking about how you aren't ignorant and how much smarter you are than random people on the internet. My ego is ok with making a mistake. Your ego can't seem to let go and move on. Y U SO MAD THO?
you seem to misunderstand my position here. I'm mostly amused. Telling you to lighten up is just that - telling you to relax. My ego is intact because it isn't derived from arguing on the internet. Apparently I'm the only one capable of not being angry at random people people on the internet for their sins of semantics and grammar. thanks for catching my mistake though, bro!
the surgery to have the rod removed from your rectum is both affordable and covered under most insurance plans.
I can tell the difference between when I need to be an asshole at work vs choosing to be an asshole to everyone I meet.
You're not having a discussion at work, no project depends on this, and one guy using the wrong word doesn't hurt anyone. Try and lighten up. Replace the word patent with copyright and re-read the comment. does it still make sense? then absorb it and move on. Does it not make sense? then it isn't worth getting into.
http://lolpie.com/images/archive/content/1/3/lol-why-u-mad-tho-U9bbc.jpg
you best watch out. the three other people who mentioned this before you have all filed for copyright on this sort of comment.
the fact that you turned this into a mac vs pc argument allows me to immediately dismiss this. I can only assume you knew how ridiculous this was, and thats why you posted AC
dude, it was the wrong word but the sentiment remains true. If you go after every person on the internet you're going to be spending your life fixing spelling mistakes and semantics. Just absorb the relevant information and move on.
do you always act like you program? do you go around at parties, telling people they're walking around in a misty clouded universe that only you can see through? Does the effort of holding the stick in your rectum cause you to be this annoying all the time? its people like you that need to lighten up.
oh lord the semantics police are on their way as we speak, red and blue lights whirling around like confused birds.
steal some ui elements? are you crazy? thats like, 14 bajillion dollars worth of damage in patent infringing tech. Injunctions would be issued, and in the end HP would own huge portions of google. well, not really, but still. I'm sure the results would be ridiculous.
I'm not talking about conscious cues, although there are those as well. we are strongly affected by our surroundings, and our perceptions of them. I'm not talking about your desk - I'm talking about environment. Even if you don't notice it, which I don't believe btw, you notice it.
a positive work environment that makes you proud to come to the office is a great 'feature' when you're hiring people to come work their little souls out at all hours of the day and night. Part of that is showing up to work and not seeing dirtiness, drabness, etc. Your environment gives you huge cues as to your behaviour.
either all the people who work at amazon saying that bezos is a micromanager are right and thats the way bezos wants it, or you're right because you read this on the internet.
not sure who to believe.
so basically her pay is based on short term stock values, relatively speaking. thats an awesome way to build a company that will endure!
I think your interpretation of what the charter allows you to do is overly broad. By your interpretation I can walk into your house and take pictures of you, since the charter gives you no rights of privacy while my right to photograph is in charter, and technically in the charter you have no right to a house either. I'm going to stop arguing here, because I think you're wrong and nothing will convince you. You've taken the charter and done a harry potter 'reductio ad absurdum' on it, and come up with a similar work of fiction.
as well the Canadian Bill of Rights (passed 1960 and still in force)
1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;,
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;,
(c) freedom of religion;,
(d) freedom of speech;,
(e) freedom of assembly and association; and,
(f) freedom of the press.,
and the charter does not mean that other rights do not exist, (section 26 of the charter)
property ownership does not override rights, but charter rights do not rule out other rights either.
quote:
"The Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of Harrison v. Carswell,(3) commented upon property rights in Canadian law as follows:
Ango-Canadian jurisprudence has traditionally recognized, as a fundamental freedom, the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof, of any interest therein, save by due process of law.(4)
Section 26 of the Charter stipulates that:
The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights and freedoms that exist in Canada."
your claims that charter rights supercede a persons right to property and the security of their property are not how courts have ruled, at all, ever.
As it was pointed out multiple times to you, his rights to make rules on his property cannot override the rules of the society at large.
except your infringing on his charter rights on his property. Its the reason why abortion protesters have to stand outside the property, even though they certainly have a right to protest. Just because you have a right to photograph doesn't mean you have a right to photograph in someone else's place of business.
I already pointed out that the very definitions of a "camera" and "taking pictures" make such rules systematically unenforceable and thus their enforcement would have to be, by definition, completely arbitrary - something that is clearly not allowed under the Charter.
A sign saying "no photography", or a guard saying you can't take pictures, is neither unenforceable nor vague. I do photography. If you decide your right to photograph is more important than the right of the store owner to decide whether or not someone takes photos in his store, you will soon be asked to leave. If you still stick around, you will be arrested and charged with trespassing, and it will never see the supreme court because your charter rights don't necessarily invalidate other people's rights.