Oh, so you want to get the customers on the hook, using software that's violating a hundred patents, and then make them pay again to keep using the software? Then if the user doesn't agree to the new EULA, shouldn't there be a refund?
That's not the way EULAs should work. If the EULA changes and you don't agree, wouldn't that mean that the former contract is still agreed on by both parties? I mean, if EULAs are lawful contracts, then the only way to invalidate a former contract is to agree on a new contract. Right? A contract clause that says "this contract may be altered later and you have to agree to it [the new contract] to maintain this contract" is not legally binding IMHO (IANAL-BIDSAAHIELN).
That's right. Whether or not you like the idea of your billionaire neighbor (you don't have one) owning a nuke, someone does in fact own them. Whether it's under a corporation name (US GOV) or a private name, it's still in the hands of mere mortal men. Who is to say that the government is and always will be the benevolent one?
Nuclear arms are terrifying, but I don't take any comfort knowing that they're just in the hands of government.
If the corrupt leaders of this world have them, why not Bill Gates? I don't honestly think he would ever think of using a tactical nuke on Apple. Do you?
Back in the day, privately-owned military ships were often a large part of a navy. Do you think that's so much unlike being able to own and operate a tank or a fighter/bomber? Do you think that the founding father's didn't expect that the wealthy could own great war machines?
Yep, it doesn't specify how the militia should be regulated. So obviously that isn't about regulating the militia. See, that part is just a reasoned explanation why the following is important, it is necessary to the security of a free State.
Arms as in armaments, weapons. Keeping as in not having them taken away. Bearing as in carrying them.
The majority of my gaming is at LAN parties, which we have 2-3 times per year. Aside from $10 or less game titles, I don't buy anything that we can't play at the LAN parties. Quite a few guys at the LAN parties also just buy the newer games solely for LAN play.
Sounds like Starcraft 2 will be joining Dragon Age on my it-may-be-the-greatest-game-ever-but-I'm-not-going-to-buy-it list.
Fortunately, I can know something without submitting it to a rigorous scientific study.
If you want to be completely anal about it, why don't you prove to me that there was actually a study, and that the reported study isn't just a hoax? I mean, if it takes some scientific hoops to jump through to pass from the realm of thought into actual knowledge, not simply of repeated personal observation, then why should my observation of this report be any less subject to testing? You cannot call it knowledge, either, until you have studied the study to verify it's findings personally. And for the hell of it, repeat the experiment to confirm it. It's the only way to be sure that it's knowledge.
Or can you just simply accept that a report on an alleged* study is less significant, to the volume of knowledge I store, than my own experience is?
In the mean time, you're not advancing the scientific method, just the pretentious prick method.
* Not actually questioning the conduct of the study, or lack thereof.
I knew it, I'll go one bit further than their study goes. It's because your mind tries to fill the gaps in the conversation. It's not simply because you only hear one side of the conversation that it disrupts your concentration, but specifically, your mind is busy trying to imagine what's going on on the other end of the call.
If your stock holdings goes up in value, you have not yet made a profit. You don't make a profit until you sell, which is money that comes from someone else. Just because they haven't sold at a loss doesn't change the fact that they still have to buy-in for you to sell. It's not a net loss, but it's not a net gain, either. The money you gain comes from others, and the money you lose goes to others. No actual wealth is created or destroyed, just transferred. It is zero-sum.
The problem with this picture is that stocks entitle the holder to a share of the profits of the corporation, which come from creating new and valuable goods and services outside of the market. Part of those profits are fed back into the market, which increases the pool of money in the market and therefore turns it into a non-zero-sum game.
That is, you can only call the stock market a zero-sum game if you assume it's a closed system, but a growing economy will continually pump new money into it (and a shrinking economy will take money away from it).
Typically, that's true, when there are dividends it's not quite zero-sum. I wasn't considering them in part because the ggp said "stock trading is not zero-sum", and in part because the dividend to stock price ratio has been falling to the point of being insignificant.
That is valuation, what you could get if you sold at the current market price. Nothing is created. You don't acquire that wealth until the sale. Zero-sum.
the fact that I made a profit does not mean someone else has to have lost money because of me.
If your stock holdings goes up in value, you have not yet made a profit. You don't make a profit until you sell, which is money that comes from someone else. Just because they haven't sold at a loss doesn't change the fact that they still have to buy-in for you to sell. It's not a net loss, but it's not a net gain, either. The money you gain comes from others, and the money you lose goes to others. No actual wealth is created or destroyed, just transferred. It is zero-sum.
Everyone said I was daft to install Windows 3.1 (before WFW 3.11) on a 286, but I installed it anyways.
At first, it borked my machine. So I did a reinstall which burned down and then borked my machine. The third install burned down, fell over and then borked my machine... but the fourth one stayed up!
crime n. a violation of a law in which there is injury to the public or a member of the public and a term in jail or prison, and/or a fine as possible penalties.
So are you suggesting that there was no law, that breaking the law did not cause injury to any member of the public, or that it was not punishable by a fine or imprisonment?
I know a lot of people pick on calling it a PIN number. But I think it helps to qualify a pin as a number, as opposed to a safety pin or a hair pin or whatever.
And imagine the confusion of being asked to enter a PI number.
"Oh god, I didn't do very well in algebra." - (Confused look from the teller.) "Lets see... there's no period on the numpad here, so that's umm... 3....1...4....1...5...." - "Just 4 digits, sir." "Oh, ok. Well then it's just 3141... right?" - (Confused look, again.)
Slashdot Mirror
With enough offensive stimuli, some are likely to suffer from premature detonation.
VESA
Finding a way to cancel execution does not negate the fact that the instructions express an endless loop.
Great. Now I feel like I'm competing in the Special Olympics. It seems we're all retarded in this thread.
Oh, so you want to get the customers on the hook, using software that's violating a hundred patents, and then make them pay again to keep using the software? Then if the user doesn't agree to the new EULA, shouldn't there be a refund?
That's not the way EULAs should work. If the EULA changes and you don't agree, wouldn't that mean that the former contract is still agreed on by both parties? I mean, if EULAs are lawful contracts, then the only way to invalidate a former contract is to agree on a new contract. Right? A contract clause that says "this contract may be altered later and you have to agree to it [the new contract] to maintain this contract" is not legally binding IMHO (IANAL-BIDSAAHIELN).
what things required an original sig?
My bank, for adding an authorized user to an account.
That's right. Whether or not you like the idea of your billionaire neighbor (you don't have one) owning a nuke, someone does in fact own them. Whether it's under a corporation name (US GOV) or a private name, it's still in the hands of mere mortal men. Who is to say that the government is and always will be the benevolent one?
Nuclear arms are terrifying, but I don't take any comfort knowing that they're just in the hands of government.
If the corrupt leaders of this world have them, why not Bill Gates? I don't honestly think he would ever think of using a tactical nuke on Apple. Do you?
Back in the day, privately-owned military ships were often a large part of a navy. Do you think that's so much unlike being able to own and operate a tank or a fighter/bomber? Do you think that the founding father's didn't expect that the wealthy could own great war machines?
Yep, it doesn't specify how the militia should be regulated. So obviously that isn't about regulating the militia. See, that part is just a reasoned explanation why the following is important, it is necessary to the security of a free State.
Arms as in armaments, weapons. Keeping as in not having them taken away. Bearing as in carrying them.
Clear?
Now is just a matter of time to see if the government does something, which is unlikely.
What do you expect the government to do, declare the area condemned or defy gravity?
The majority of my gaming is at LAN parties, which we have 2-3 times per year. Aside from $10 or less game titles, I don't buy anything that we can't play at the LAN parties. Quite a few guys at the LAN parties also just buy the newer games solely for LAN play.
Sounds like Starcraft 2 will be joining Dragon Age on my it-may-be-the-greatest-game-ever-but-I'm-not-going-to-buy-it list.
Fortunately, I can know something without submitting it to a rigorous scientific study.
If you want to be completely anal about it, why don't you prove to me that there was actually a study, and that the reported study isn't just a hoax? I mean, if it takes some scientific hoops to jump through to pass from the realm of thought into actual knowledge, not simply of repeated personal observation, then why should my observation of this report be any less subject to testing? You cannot call it knowledge, either, until you have studied the study to verify it's findings personally. And for the hell of it, repeat the experiment to confirm it. It's the only way to be sure that it's knowledge.
Or can you just simply accept that a report on an alleged* study is less significant, to the volume of knowledge I store, than my own experience is?
In the mean time, you're not advancing the scientific method, just the pretentious prick method.
* Not actually questioning the conduct of the study, or lack thereof.
I knew it, I'll go one bit further than their study goes. It's because your mind tries to fill the gaps in the conversation. It's not simply because you only hear one side of the conversation that it disrupts your concentration, but specifically, your mind is busy trying to imagine what's going on on the other end of the call.
The problem with this picture is that stocks entitle the holder to a share of the profits of the corporation, which come from creating new and valuable goods and services outside of the market. Part of those profits are fed back into the market, which increases the pool of money in the market and therefore turns it into a non-zero-sum game.
That is, you can only call the stock market a zero-sum game if you assume it's a closed system, but a growing economy will continually pump new money into it (and a shrinking economy will take money away from it).
Typically, that's true, when there are dividends it's not quite zero-sum. I wasn't considering them in part because the ggp said "stock trading is not zero-sum", and in part because the dividend to stock price ratio has been falling to the point of being insignificant.
That is valuation, what you could get if you sold at the current market price. Nothing is created. You don't acquire that wealth until the sale. Zero-sum.
the fact that I made a profit does not mean someone else has to have lost money because of me.
If your stock holdings goes up in value, you have not yet made a profit. You don't make a profit until you sell, which is money that comes from someone else. Just because they haven't sold at a loss doesn't change the fact that they still have to buy-in for you to sell. It's not a net loss, but it's not a net gain, either. The money you gain comes from others, and the money you lose goes to others. No actual wealth is created or destroyed, just transferred. It is zero-sum.
Modded off-topic? I thought it was informative.
A gas is a compressible fluid.
Like, for instance, carbon dioxide?
I've never found durian pleasing to taste, but I have occasionally enjoyed it for being alcoholic.
Everyone said I was daft to install Windows 3.1 (before WFW 3.11) on a 286, but I installed it anyways.
At first, it borked my machine. So I did a reinstall which burned down and then borked my machine. The third install burned down, fell over and then borked my machine... but the fourth one stayed up!
And that's what you'll get, lad.
And after all that we learn the tragedy that he was switched at birth.
Hello there, you silly English ka-niggot.
That's k + nig + h + t.
Yes, but everything changes when they add "on the internet" to the patent claim.
Notice that it says a term in jail or prison, and/or a fine?
Would you like to try a new angle?
Ok, so you want to focus on the use of the word crime instead.
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=399&bold=||||
crime
n. a violation of a law in which there is injury to the public or a member of the public and a term in jail or prison, and/or a fine as possible penalties.
So are you suggesting that there was no law, that breaking the law did not cause injury to any member of the public, or that it was not punishable by a fine or imprisonment?
What exactly do you think convict means?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/convict%5B2%5D
transitive verb
1: to find or prove to be guilty
2: to convince of error or sinfulness
intransitive verb
: to find a defendant guilty
I know a lot of people pick on calling it a PIN number. But I think it helps to qualify a pin as a number, as opposed to a safety pin or a hair pin or whatever.
And imagine the confusion of being asked to enter a PI number.
"Oh god, I didn't do very well in algebra."
- (Confused look from the teller.)
"Lets see... there's no period on the numpad here, so that's umm... 3....1...4....1...5...."
- "Just 4 digits, sir."
"Oh, ok. Well then it's just 3141... right?"
- (Confused look, again.)