While it's nice to speculate that the guy was fired for reasons that suit the average slashdotter's predilection's about DRM, there is no evidence that this is the case.
In the real world, and even in the legal world, circumstantial evidence is still evidence. You're welcome to offer direct evidence to the contrary... but direct evidence has never been a requirement for criminal convictions, much less individual opinion concening massive business failures followed closely by executives seeking more time with their families.
"No evidence" is usually a euphamism for "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALA." You're welcome to offer a better explanation, but there is certainly evidence that this is the case.
Which, as your link points out, they don't because although you can build an engine powered by it, handling fluorine in quantities like that is incredibly toxic in every possible capacity, environmentally devastating and not a currently used fuel in commercial launchers for all these reasons.
Happy hear that nobody uses hydrazine as a propellant due to toxicity and environmental devastation either.
The post that you replied to in your actual overbroad post:
it scatters in smoke just fine. look up "windscale fire"
It's chemically possible. Your statement was comically overbroad. Deal with it. Your zeal to defend RTGs (which I agree are safe, BTW) does not excuse it.
Plutonium dioxide is already oxidized. It's chemically impossible for it to catch fire, and again, dense and heavy with a high melting point.
Never underestimate the power of chemistry to make unintentionally broad statements concerning lack of ability to catch fire look silly. You assume burning in air. Chemists merely look for a stronger oxidizer. Muahahaha....
Are rockets launched with thousands of kilos of fluorine-based oxidizer?
I'm assuming we're talking about a rocket launch failure of a plutonium-dioxide based RTG. These devices have a long history of safe operation by now, with the most extreme test being the lunar lander splashdown after Apollo 13 where the RTG survived the crash intact. Prior to that there have been several instances of rupture, but provided they remain rare, the risks posed these uncommon events are still low.
Wow. Rather than acknowledge that your statement, which I took pains to highlight was unintentionally overbroad, was contradicted by a rather cool video of some more common oxides catching fire, you felt the need to be an ass by dragging in a number of points which neither the post that you responded to, your original post, or the specifically quoted statement actually reference.
1. Are rockets launched with thousands of kilos of fluorine-based oxidizer? PossiblyWhat ISP do you want? Nevermind that plutonium dioxide is "burned" with fluorine in some plutonium enrichment processes. Thank you, Wikipedia.
2. We're talking about a rocket launch failure involving an RTG? The parent wasn't, and you weren't in your response, both of which were referring to a nuclear pile fire. I sure as hell wasn't. However, I'm happy to assume that we're talking about a fluorine-oxidized rocket fuel so long as one person can unilaterally assume things for the other.
3. RTGs have a long history of safe operation. Irrelevant. You mentioned an oxidation state, then said that it is "chemically impossible for plutonium dioxide to catch fire." Not a word about an RTG, a rocket explosion, limits on the chemicals involved... nada. Well, there are more oxidizers in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your meager visions of chemistry.
I suggest that you learn to deal with minor mistakes in more self-deprecating manner. Ass.
Plutonium dioxide is already oxidized. It's chemically impossible for it to catch fire, and again, dense and heavy with a high melting point.
Never underestimate the power of chemistry to make unintentionally broad statements concerning lack of ability to catch fire look silly. You assume burning in air. Chemists merely look for a stronger oxidizer. Muahahaha....
He says the scanner provides an excuse for them to do "enhanced patdowns".
I don't know what sort of people enjoy giving enhanced patdowns to other people, but know I don't want them in my airports.
That is exactly the impression that I got from the summary, but TFA is not nearly so Orwellian. The summary uses "it," but doesn't accurately convey that "it" refers to the scanner, not the removal of the scanner. The article says:
"People had become comfortable with the scanner. It certainly did speed the process and removed the need for the enhanced pat-down."
If we simply hold the contractors to the terms of their contracts, we will save tons of money and have equipment that works. A simple fix off the top of my head would be that, should a contractor not be able to adhere to the terms of the contract, they should be unable to bid on another contract for a certain period of time....
A simple solution proposed by a person who has obviously never dealt with a contracting problem in their life.
Adhere to the terms of which contract? A contract reflecting the specifications laid out in the initial proposal? A contract reflecting the specifications laid out in the revised proposal? A contract reflecting the specifications described in the explanation of the award (which is a particular point tending to draw defense contract litigation -- suddenly the criteria on which the award is judge change from what was laid out in the propsals)... or...
A contract reflectiing the first change order, the second change order... the thousandth change order... the thousand and first change order...
Do you propose to hold the government to the terms of its contracts? Or is this a one way license for the government to alter the content while keeping the initial cost and time requirements?
If you'd ever dealt with commercial or residential construction, you know that change orders cost real time and money. You don't enter into a contract, and then decide that you want a fourth bedroom, and the floors to be slate instead of hardwood, and the walls to be wired with that new grade of fiber optic cable necessary for 10 Gbit ethernet rather than the 100 Mbit single mode fiber you initially specified thinking that you could move to higher speeds, but which didn't make the cut. No without paying relatively dearly for the privilege.
And that's just one part of it. The government's proposals for new equipment, especially for combat aircraft, do not limit themselves to established technology. They set cutting edge requirements that the defense contractors attempt to meet with prototypes, then balance between what is wanted and what is possible, then leave it to the contractor to turn the prototype into production aircraft. Money tends to be spent lavishly because that is the level of risk that the government wants to take, and the defense contractors simply will not accept that level of risk entirely on their own -- there are risk sharing provisions and guarantees in the event that that prototype thrust vectoring system which seemed like it might meet the proposal requirements really can't be turned into a RoboTech-like ability to take off vertically with a 6000lb weapon load and 2000 miles worth of fuel.
Simply hold the contractors to the terms of their contracts, and you will only get what is demonstrably production ready at the time of the propsal, and you can throw your change orders down the engine intakes.
Yes, however this complaint is headed for the rapid dismissal path to ruin. They merely plead that "a series of contracts and/or combinations" has violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
They haven 't alleged any coordination (where all the parties communicate with each other privately, whether directly or through an intermediary, to set similar terms), and they haven't alleged any contractual term or private agreement which forbids the publishers from selling them eBooks. Apple is in the hot seat beacause it served as an intermediatry in private communications which established the 30% charge and MFN clause amongst all the publishers at essentially the same time.
These sellers are only complaining that the publishers have not entered into contracts with them. Tough. You cannot force an individual business to sell to you, and you cannot force a group of businesses who individually decide not to sell to you to sell to you. Coordination requires a private agreement -- antitrust coordination does not reach natural cartels, such as airlines or petroleum, so long as all the members independently react to the public actions of the others. Other laws regulate mergers tending to further concentrate an industry, but that's not relevant here.
They need to plausibly allege a coordinated and concerted refusal to deal with them (Google "Twombley" and "Iqbal" and "supreme court"). They haven't. Case dismissed with leave to refile.
Even when they refile, they're unlikely to pull it off since the government's Apple investigation grew out of an initial investigation into Amazon. Those contract terms would have stood out like flaming beacons of illegality. They're likely going to have to beg for permission to engage in a fishing expedition concerning unspecified private agreements to exclude them. The problem is, the courts don't look favorably on that sort of discovery. It's not going to happen. Second dismissal, with prejudice.
[*] It isn't, 'would've', rhymes with 'love', not 'of'
PS: You never heard anybody say "would have"? Where did you grow up?
In the same land as Merriam-Webster, apparently.
love (\'l[schwa]v\) of (\[schwa]v; especially before a consonant -.[schwa]... when emphatic, as when it is the last or the first word in a sentence, |[schwa]v...\)
Phonetically identical '[schwa]v' where [schwa] is the printed upside-down e that Slashdot cannot reproduce properly from Unicode.
You've never heard anybody say "would've"? You grew up where everyone primarily says "would have"? I sincerely doubt it, since I've never heard "you never heard" without either "have" or the "'ve" contraction from people who actually use "have" in that manner.
No, in English we say "would've guessed." Which is phonetically identical to "would of guessed."
Thank you for proving that snooty language jerk-ism is not limited to the French, however.* We all benefit through self-serving efforts to match the worst characteristics of each other.
GP stated that "Bowman didn't sign it," not that "Bowman didn't sign it for his second plantings." The first suggests to the reader that he never agreed to the planting restrictions or was somehow innocently unaware of what he was doing. The second suggests that he was perfectly aware that what he was doing would violate at least the patents, if not the contract itself (there's no reason for the contract to be specific to that planting. as opposed to a period of time up until the patents expire).
It's funny how including what Bowman actually did gets the post moderated as a Troll, but accusing a company of suing 'innocent' farmers who purchase seeds in a very unusual way is +5 informative. Bias much?
Great, you're free to have those agreements but Bowman didn't sign it.
Yes, he did. Spefically, as reported by the Court of Appeals (thank Slashdot for the odd character mappings):
Pioneer HiÃ"Bred (ÃoePioneerÃ) is one of Monsanto's licensed seed producers. à In 2002, Pioneer sold Pioneer HiÃ"Bredî brand seeds containing the Roundup Readyî technology to Bowman, a grower in Knox County, Indiana. à In making the sale, Pioneer required Bowman to execute the ÃoePioneer HiÃ"Bred Technology Agreement,à which contains language and restrictions identical to the Technology Agreements discussed above. à See J.A. 673. à Bowman purchased from Pioneer and planted seeds containing the Roundup Readyî technology each year, beginning as early as 1999. à Bowman planted Roundup Readyî seeds as his first-crop in each growing season during the years 1999 through 2007. à Consistent with the terms of the Technology Agreement, Bowman did not save seed from his first-crop during any of those years.
In 1999, Bowman also purchased commodity seed from a local grain elevator, Huey Soil Service, for a late-season planting, or Ãoesecond-crop.à à Because Bowman considered the second-crop to be a riskier planting, he purchased the commodity seed to avoid paying the significantly higher price for Pioneer's Roundup Readyî seed. à That same year, Bowman applied glyphosate-based herbicide to the fields in which he had planted the commodity seeds to control weeds and to determine whether the plants would exhibit glyphosate resistance. à He confirmed that many of the plants were, indeed, resistant. à In each subsequent year, from 2000 through 2007, Bowman treated his second-crop with glyphosate-based herbicide. à Unlike his first-crop, Bowman saved the seed harvested from his second-crop for replanting additional second-crops in later years. à He also supplemented his second-crop planting supply with periodic additional purchases of commodity seed from the grain elevator. à Bowman did not attempt to hide his activities, and he candidly explained his practices with respect to his second-crop soybeans in various correspondence with Monsanto's representatives.
Returning to the parent:
I'll be sure to remind everyone that Monsanto seed can result in ruination if they find their way back into the soil. Then we'll see how your sales do, mmkay?
I'll be sure to remind everyone that you lack credibility, and that Monsanto appears to only be pursuing people who intentionally violate its patents.
Great, you're free to have those agreements but Bowman didn't sign it.
Yes, he did. Spefically, as reported by the Court of Appeals (thank Slashdot for the odd character mappings):
Pioneer HiÃ"Bred (ÃoePioneerÃ) is one of Monsanto's licensed seed producers. à In 2002, Pioneer sold Pioneer HiÃ"Bredî brand seeds containing the Roundup Readyî technology to Bowman, a grower in Knox County, Indiana. à In making the sale, Pioneer required Bowman to execute the ÃoePioneer HiÃ"Bred Technology Agreement,à which contains language and restrictions identical to the Technology Agreements discussed above. à See J.A. 673. à Bowman purchased from Pioneer and planted seeds containing the Roundup Readyî technology each year, beginning as early as 1999. à Bowman planted Roundup Readyî seeds as his first-crop in each growing season during the years 1999 through 2007. à Consistent with the terms of the Technology Agreement, Bowman did not save seed from his first-crop during any of those years.
In 1999, Bowman also purchased commodity seed from a local grain elevator, Huey Soil Service, for a late-season planting, or Ãoesecond-crop.à à Because Bowman considered the second-crop to be a riskier planting, he purchased the commodity seed to avoid paying the significantly higher price for Pioneer's Roundup Readyî seed. à That same year, Bowman applied glyphosate-based herbicide to the fields in which he had planted the commodity seeds to control weeds and to determine whether the plants would exhibit glyphosate resistance. à He confirmed that many of the plants were, indeed, resistant. à In each subsequent year, from 2000 through 2007, Bowman treated his second-crop with glyphosate-based herbicide. à Unlike his first-crop, Bowman saved the seed harvested from his second-crop for replanting additional second-crops in later years. à He also supplemented his second-crop planting supply with periodic additional purchases of commodity seed from the grain elevator. à Bowman did not attempt to hide his activities, and he candidly explained his practices with respect to his second-crop soybeans in various correspondence with Monsanto's representatives.
Returning to the parent:
I'll be sure to remind everyone that Monsanto seed can result in ruination if they find their way back into the soil. Then we'll see how your sales do, mmkay?
I'll be sure to remind everyone that you lack credibility, and that Monsanto has only been pursuing people who intentionally violate its patents.
In the case currently heading for the Supreme Court the farmer in question never planted GM seed purchased under contract. He unwittingly acquired GM seeds for use as a second planting by buying leftovers from local silos.
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
If you were representing the farmer in question, you would be disbarrred, since the farmer has admitted to planting GM seed, intentionally replanting GM seed, and "unwittingly" treating his crop with glycophosphate, which would kill any non-GM soybean. Spefically, as reported by the Court of Appeals (thank Slashdot for the odd character mappings):
Pioneer Hiâ"Bred (âoePioneerâ) is one of Monsanto's licensed seed producers. â In 2002, Pioneer sold Pioneer Hiâ"Bred® brand seeds containing the Roundup Ready® technology to Bowman, a grower in Knox County, Indiana. â In making the sale, Pioneer required Bowman to execute the âoePioneer Hiâ"Bred Technology Agreement,â which contains language and restrictions identical to the Technology Agreements discussed above. â See J.A. 673. â Bowman purchased from Pioneer and planted seeds containing the Roundup Ready® technology each year, beginning as early as 1999. â Bowman planted Roundup Ready® seeds as his first-crop in each growing season during the years 1999 through 2007. â Consistent with the terms of the Technology Agreement, Bowman did not save seed from his first-crop during any of those years.
In 1999, Bowman also purchased commodity seed from a local grain elevator, Huey Soil Service, for a late-season planting, or âoesecond-crop.â â Because Bowman considered the second-crop to be a riskier planting, he purchased the commodity seed to avoid paying the significantly higher price for Pioneer's Roundup Ready® seed. â That same year, Bowman applied glyphosate-based herbicide to the fields in which he had planted the commodity seeds to control weeds and to determine whether the plants would exhibit glyphosate resistance. â He confirmed that many of the plants were, indeed, resistant. â In each subsequent year, from 2000 through 2007, Bowman treated his second-crop with glyphosate-based herbicide. â Unlike his first-crop, Bowman saved the seed harvested from his second-crop for replanting additional second-crops in later years. â He also supplemented his second-crop planting supply with periodic additional purchases of commodity seed from the grain elevator. â Bowman did not attempt to hide his activities, and he candidly explained his practices with respect to his second-crop soybeans in various correspondence with Monsanto's representatives.
Well-meaning farmer? Hardly. He knowlingly adopted his replanting practices and has (so far) lost.
There is an apparent corruption of the word process that confused a physical process with a logical process. The process for making steel is not the same as a process describing how to manage the making of steel.
The very fact that you have to add the adjectives "physical" and "logical" to "process" undermines your argument. You've admitted that "process" is generic to both, and we can see that "process" is the word that was used.
The argument concerning the meaning of the law is over and done with. If you refuse to turn to arguments concerning policy and changes to the law, you may as well change your name to Don Quixote.
If the patent runs out this year, sounds like stalling tactics are exactly the right way to go. Perhaps a pro-bono letter from a lawyer saying "we're examining the validity of your claim and we'll get back to you on that".
Except for the minor problem that you can sue for patent infringement even after the patent expires, since the 'statute of limitation' for infringement damages goes back 6 years.
You'd be amazed at the sort of advice that you can obtain from lawyers who have actually studied the law, as opposed to joe-yank-an-answer-out-of-his-hindquarters.
That said, I would not want to be the person who was being sued over using such a service. You'd presumably have to convince a judge that your purpose for using the software in the first place was something other than engaging in or facilitating copyright infringement.... Good luck with that.
It probably wouldn't be fun to have to make the argument as a defendant, but it's the same argument that anyone operating a TOR node must be prepared to make -- substanitally non-infringing use for sake of privacy.
These days 'everyone' seems to be intent upon vacuuming up and at least semi-permanently retaining every piece of behavioral information that they can. Whether it's 'research' concerning the near- mythological circulation of linux ISOs or merely RIAA and MPAA copyright enforcers throwing DMCA notices if a filename so much as resembles a property that they're interested in (yes, this has been documented to happen), there is a pro-social benefit to having and providing anonymity in circumstances where what is being exchanged is permitted by express or implied licence or *gasp* the public domain.
The argument becomes very not fun when some huge fraction of the material is infringing (a la Napster), but there you have it.
There is nothing wrong, from a libertarian or free market point of view, for a group of companies to form a syndicate for the purpose fo managing employees.... It is much better to agree between companies that the lowest possible compensation will be offered to a agreed upon pool of labor.
While the worker could use libertarian and free market values to make his or her life better... many will attack the system instead.... In the most agressive and impetuous cases, labor will organize as if they have the same rights and profit motivations as management and the firms in order to form their own syndicate to maximize the profits of labor.
I'm confused by your characterization of libertarian and free market values. Is it a libertarian and pro-free market value to form a syndicate so as to maximize profit or not? How does a company profit conceptually differ from a laborer's profit so that in one instance syndication is not wrong but in the other it is? Because it appears to me that "wrong" is being defined solely by your actual (or desired) status as a shareholder rather than a laborer...
What would influencing the vote have to do with it? I think you're misreading what it meant by "spoil" in this context: to reveal the ending early, which is exactly what they did.
Another weapon for the AGW arsenal... climate scientists are 'spoiling' the future!
This is IMHO not related to overpopulation. After all, if all else were equal, you'd need twice as many people to support twice as many people. The need scales with the supply because both are essentially identical.
I'm not a fan of the 'overpopulation' label, but all else is not equal. If your job to machine or assemble widgets, and the widget demand scales with population, then all else might be equal. If your job is to design a widet, the demand for widget designs does not scale with population -- at least not to nearly the same degree.
Improvements in the ability to store, copy, and communicate information means that knowledge industry jobs or creative jobs will tend to scale more slowly than population growth. Doubling the population does not double the number of tablet designers, nor the number of commercially viable bands. Simultaneously, improvements in other automation are rapidy eating away at many jobs which would otherwise scale with population growth.
It's certainly not a strictly either-or problem, in that greater population supports a greater diversity of demand, you as of yet need people to service the automation, to manage other people (even knowledge workers and creatives), etc., but technological development is creating increasing employment problems (as well as opportunities).
A law wasn't passed ex post facto and wasn't applied retroactively. A law passed years ago was declared unconstitutional, and the FTB is now making people re-file their taxes without its benefit.
Not disagreeing with your overall sentiment, but to further clarify:
A tax law passed years ago was in effect years ago. An exemption law passed in 2008 shielded some people from the tax, but was declared unconstitutional. The exemption is being retroactively removed -- which brings up the interesting issue of whether constitutional rulings apply retroactively -- but the tax is not being retroactivey created or increased. The net effect is of course a tax increase, but other posters should not pretend that the tax did not already exist.
Publishing this arcane factoid will just make the KDE devs feel inadequate when our bro Thiago Macieira could have earned a PhD in CS and submitted a patch herself. Can you mod an entire story -1 TROLL?
Embarrassing != Troll.
There are bugs much older than this in the wild.
And those projects, whether run as open source or owned by Microsoft or owned by some other closed source shop, should be embarrassed as well. If the bugs are that longstanding, public shaming is probably the only motivation left to drive them to be fixed.
I looked at several of the links you suggested, and could only find injuries for all of 2012.
Cool, so we can select only one year? I pick 2002. Nevermind the whole point about them being a fallback when guns are not available.
Cars have many uses. Guns are used only for killing. All other uses of the gun such as target shooting, are done with the explicit purpose of gaining skill & accuracy and being more effective at killing a person or animal. That is why targets are frequently look like people, to make it easier to shoot a person. When a car kills somebody, it has to be balanced against the utility and value provided. When a gun kills somebody, it is functioning as intended.
When a car kills somebody, it is functioning as intended. It is being used, however, incorrectly.
When a gun kills a deer it is functioning as intended. When a gun kills a goose it is functioning as intended. When a gun scares off a home invader, it is functioning as intended. You must balance against the utility and value provided in both cases, and frankly distinguish incorrect use in the same manner that you are so obviously willing to use for cars.
Personally I think all semi-auto guns should be banned, though i recognize that is considered an extreme viewpoint inside the US, and a normal viewpoint everywhere else in the world. Shotguns and revolvers are sufficient for self-defense, bolt action rifles for hunting. Failing that, restrictions on ammo purchases & limits to amount of bullets that can be stored at home, closing the gun show loophole and not allowing any transactions between private individuals, licensing the possession of all firearms and making the owners prove their mental competence on a regular interval, and prove the safety of the weapons with a gun safe inspection, along with the inadequate but "doing something" options of adding magazine size restrictions.
Revolvers are semi-automatic weapons. Bolt action rifles have been used in mass shootings as well. You can't enfore limits on the numbers of bullets that can be stored at home without periodically auditing the home -- which the US will not tolerate no matter what (the whole governmental intrusion aspect of the 4th amendment). You can't prevent transactions between private individuals, because there are tens if not hundreds of millions of unregistered weapons and no way to audit or monitor such transactions. You can't license the possession of all firearms because there are tens if not hundreds of millions of unregistered weapons already out there and the gun owners will not comply.
All of your 'non-inadequate' measures, besides being politically impossible in this country, will not work because gun owners -- myself included -- will not comply with the mass surrender or pre-confiscation of devices that you so obviously intend. You have to convince us that the restrictions are reasonabe, or you will never accomplish your goal.
And that cost should be paid for those who want to carry guns with their wallets, not by the rest of society in blood.
Sure thing -- we'll get right on that at the same time that you address cars, the item which kills even more people per year when misused by drunk drivers, road ragers, the inattentive, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Where enough is arbitrarily defined so that what exists is inadequate, even if nothing else is more adequate.
Perhaps this is enough.
Query: What projection-altering event has happened within the past two months to tank the financial guidance issued in January?
In the real world, and even in the legal world, circumstantial evidence is still evidence. You're welcome to offer direct evidence to the contrary... but direct evidence has never been a requirement for criminal convictions, much less individual opinion concening massive business failures followed closely by executives seeking more time with their families.
"No evidence" is usually a euphamism for "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALA." You're welcome to offer a better explanation, but there is certainly evidence that this is the case.
Happy hear that nobody uses hydrazine as a propellant due to toxicity and environmental devastation either.
The post that you replied to in your actual overbroad post:
It's chemically possible. Your statement was comically overbroad. Deal with it. Your zeal to defend RTGs (which I agree are safe, BTW) does not excuse it.
Wow. Rather than acknowledge that your statement, which I took pains to highlight was unintentionally overbroad, was contradicted by a rather cool video of some more common oxides catching fire, you felt the need to be an ass by dragging in a number of points which neither the post that you responded to, your original post, or the specifically quoted statement actually reference.
1. Are rockets launched with thousands of kilos of fluorine-based oxidizer? Possibly What ISP do you want? Nevermind that plutonium dioxide is "burned" with fluorine in some plutonium enrichment processes. Thank you, Wikipedia.
2. We're talking about a rocket launch failure involving an RTG? The parent wasn't, and you weren't in your response, both of which were referring to a nuclear pile fire. I sure as hell wasn't. However, I'm happy to assume that we're talking about a fluorine-oxidized rocket fuel so long as one person can unilaterally assume things for the other.
3. RTGs have a long history of safe operation. Irrelevant. You mentioned an oxidation state, then said that it is "chemically impossible for plutonium dioxide to catch fire." Not a word about an RTG, a rocket explosion, limits on the chemicals involved... nada. Well, there are more oxidizers in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your meager visions of chemistry.
I suggest that you learn to deal with minor mistakes in more self-deprecating manner. Ass.
Never underestimate the power of chemistry to make unintentionally broad statements concerning lack of ability to catch fire look silly. You assume burning in air. Chemists merely look for a stronger oxidizer. Muahahaha....
That is exactly the impression that I got from the summary, but TFA is not nearly so Orwellian. The summary uses "it," but doesn't accurately convey that "it" refers to the scanner, not the removal of the scanner. The article says:
A simple solution proposed by a person who has obviously never dealt with a contracting problem in their life.
Adhere to the terms of which contract? A contract reflecting the specifications laid out in the initial proposal? A contract reflecting the specifications laid out in the revised proposal? A contract reflecting the specifications described in the explanation of the award (which is a particular point tending to draw defense contract litigation -- suddenly the criteria on which the award is judge change from what was laid out in the propsals)... or...
A contract reflectiing the first change order, the second change order... the thousandth change order... the thousand and first change order...
Do you propose to hold the government to the terms of its contracts? Or is this a one way license for the government to alter the content while keeping the initial cost and time requirements?
If you'd ever dealt with commercial or residential construction, you know that change orders cost real time and money. You don't enter into a contract, and then decide that you want a fourth bedroom, and the floors to be slate instead of hardwood, and the walls to be wired with that new grade of fiber optic cable necessary for 10 Gbit ethernet rather than the 100 Mbit single mode fiber you initially specified thinking that you could move to higher speeds, but which didn't make the cut. No without paying relatively dearly for the privilege.
And that's just one part of it. The government's proposals for new equipment, especially for combat aircraft, do not limit themselves to established technology. They set cutting edge requirements that the defense contractors attempt to meet with prototypes, then balance between what is wanted and what is possible, then leave it to the contractor to turn the prototype into production aircraft. Money tends to be spent lavishly because that is the level of risk that the government wants to take, and the defense contractors simply will not accept that level of risk entirely on their own -- there are risk sharing provisions and guarantees in the event that that prototype thrust vectoring system which seemed like it might meet the proposal requirements really can't be turned into a RoboTech-like ability to take off vertically with a 6000lb weapon load and 2000 miles worth of fuel.
Simply hold the contractors to the terms of their contracts, and you will only get what is demonstrably production ready at the time of the propsal, and you can throw your change orders down the engine intakes.
Replying to myself.
Google Twombly, not Twombley -- Google will catch it, but the fact that I screwed up the -y versus -ey is annoying.
Surprisingly I think the Wikipedia entries for Twombly and Iqbal (Rule 8 pleading standard) are decent summaries of what is required.
Yes, however this complaint is headed for the rapid dismissal path to ruin. They merely plead that "a series of contracts and/or combinations" has violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
They haven 't alleged any coordination (where all the parties communicate with each other privately, whether directly or through an intermediary, to set similar terms), and they haven't alleged any contractual term or private agreement which forbids the publishers from selling them eBooks. Apple is in the hot seat beacause it served as an intermediatry in private communications which established the 30% charge and MFN clause amongst all the publishers at essentially the same time.
These sellers are only complaining that the publishers have not entered into contracts with them. Tough. You cannot force an individual business to sell to you, and you cannot force a group of businesses who individually decide not to sell to you to sell to you. Coordination requires a private agreement -- antitrust coordination does not reach natural cartels, such as airlines or petroleum, so long as all the members independently react to the public actions of the others. Other laws regulate mergers tending to further concentrate an industry, but that's not relevant here.
They need to plausibly allege a coordinated and concerted refusal to deal with them (Google "Twombley" and "Iqbal" and "supreme court"). They haven't. Case dismissed with leave to refile.
Even when they refile, they're unlikely to pull it off since the government's Apple investigation grew out of an initial investigation into Amazon. Those contract terms would have stood out like flaming beacons of illegality. They're likely going to have to beg for permission to engage in a fishing expedition concerning unspecified private agreements to exclude them. The problem is, the courts don't look favorably on that sort of discovery. It's not going to happen. Second dismissal, with prejudice.
Welcome to ruin.
Such as the original poster, who was really obviously not American, and quite likely French (hence, the title of this part of the comments).
If you are conversational but not fluent, it's very easy to screw up the written grammar with a bad rendition of the phoneme.
In the same land as Merriam-Webster, apparently.
love (\'l[schwa]v\)
of (\[schwa]v; especially before a consonant -.[schwa]... when emphatic, as when it is the last or the first word in a sentence, |[schwa]v...\)
Phonetically identical '[schwa]v' where [schwa] is the printed upside-down e that Slashdot cannot reproduce properly from Unicode.
You've never heard anybody say "would've"?
You grew up where everyone primarily says "would have"?
I sincerely doubt it, since I've never heard "you never heard" without either "have" or the "'ve" contraction from people who actually use "have" in that manner.
No, in English we say "would've guessed." Which is phonetically identical to "would of guessed."
Thank you for proving that snooty language jerk-ism is not limited to the French, however.* We all benefit through self-serving efforts to match the worst characteristics of each other.
(*Some of the French)
GP stated that "Bowman didn't sign it," not that "Bowman didn't sign it for his second plantings." The first suggests to the reader that he never agreed to the planting restrictions or was somehow innocently unaware of what he was doing. The second suggests that he was perfectly aware that what he was doing would violate at least the patents, if not the contract itself (there's no reason for the contract to be specific to that planting. as opposed to a period of time up until the patents expire).
It's funny how including what Bowman actually did gets the post moderated as a Troll, but accusing a company of suing 'innocent' farmers who purchase seeds in a very unusual way is +5 informative. Bias much?
Yes, he did. Spefically, as reported by the Court of Appeals (thank Slashdot for the odd character mappings):
Returning to the parent:
I'll be sure to remind everyone that you lack credibility, and that Monsanto appears to only be pursuing people who intentionally violate its patents.
Yes, he did. Spefically, as reported by the Court of Appeals (thank Slashdot for the odd character mappings):
Returning to the parent:
I'll be sure to remind everyone that you lack credibility, and that Monsanto has only been pursuing people who intentionally violate its patents.
Liar, liar, pants on fire. If you were representing the farmer in question, you would be disbarrred, since the farmer has admitted to planting GM seed, intentionally replanting GM seed, and "unwittingly" treating his crop with glycophosphate, which would kill any non-GM soybean. Spefically, as reported by the Court of Appeals (thank Slashdot for the odd character mappings):
Well-meaning farmer? Hardly. He knowlingly adopted his replanting practices and has (so far) lost.
The very fact that you have to add the adjectives "physical" and "logical" to "process" undermines your argument. You've admitted that "process" is generic to both, and we can see that "process" is the word that was used.
You're not happy with patents for business methods. Many people aren't. But let's not pretend that the principal architect of the 1952 act was anyone other than man who ruled that there is no business method exception to patentable "methods" and "processes". Then, turn to the fact that even the Supreme Court is not willing to back your interpretation.
The argument concerning the meaning of the law is over and done with. If you refuse to turn to arguments concerning policy and changes to the law, you may as well change your name to Don Quixote.
Except for the minor problem that you can sue for patent infringement even after the patent expires, since the 'statute of limitation' for infringement damages goes back 6 years.
You'd be amazed at the sort of advice that you can obtain from lawyers who have actually studied the law, as opposed to joe-yank-an-answer-out-of-his-hindquarters.
It probably wouldn't be fun to have to make the argument as a defendant, but it's the same argument that anyone operating a TOR node must be prepared to make -- substanitally non-infringing use for sake of privacy.
These days 'everyone' seems to be intent upon vacuuming up and at least semi-permanently retaining every piece of behavioral information that they can. Whether it's 'research' concerning the near- mythological circulation of linux ISOs or merely RIAA and MPAA copyright enforcers throwing DMCA notices if a filename so much as resembles a property that they're interested in (yes, this has been documented to happen), there is a pro-social benefit to having and providing anonymity in circumstances where what is being exchanged is permitted by express or implied licence or *gasp* the public domain.
The argument becomes very not fun when some huge fraction of the material is infringing (a la Napster), but there you have it.
I'm confused by your characterization of libertarian and free market values. Is it a libertarian and pro-free market value to form a syndicate so as to maximize profit or not? How does a company profit conceptually differ from a laborer's profit so that in one instance syndication is not wrong but in the other it is? Because it appears to me that "wrong" is being defined solely by your actual (or desired) status as a shareholder rather than a laborer...
Another weapon for the AGW arsenal... climate scientists are 'spoiling' the future!
I'm not a fan of the 'overpopulation' label, but all else is not equal. If your job to machine or assemble widgets, and the widget demand scales with population, then all else might be equal. If your job is to design a widet, the demand for widget designs does not scale with population -- at least not to nearly the same degree.
Improvements in the ability to store, copy, and communicate information means that knowledge industry jobs or creative jobs will tend to scale more slowly than population growth. Doubling the population does not double the number of tablet designers, nor the number of commercially viable bands. Simultaneously, improvements in other automation are rapidy eating away at many jobs which would otherwise scale with population growth.
It's certainly not a strictly either-or problem, in that greater population supports a greater diversity of demand, you as of yet need people to service the automation, to manage other people (even knowledge workers and creatives), etc., but technological development is creating increasing employment problems (as well as opportunities).
Not disagreeing with your overall sentiment, but to further clarify:
A tax law passed years ago was in effect years ago. An exemption law passed in 2008 shielded some people from the tax, but was declared unconstitutional. The exemption is being retroactively removed -- which brings up the interesting issue of whether constitutional rulings apply retroactively -- but the tax is not being retroactivey created or increased. The net effect is of course a tax increase, but other posters should not pretend that the tax did not already exist.
Embarrassing != Troll.
And those projects, whether run as open source or owned by Microsoft or owned by some other closed source shop, should be embarrassed as well. If the bugs are that longstanding, public shaming is probably the only motivation left to drive them to be fixed.
Cool, so we can select only one year? I pick 2002. Nevermind the whole point about them being a fallback when guns are not available.
When a car kills somebody, it is functioning as intended. It is being used, however, incorrectly.
When a gun kills a deer it is functioning as intended. When a gun kills a goose it is functioning as intended. When a gun scares off a home invader, it is functioning as intended. You must balance against the utility and value provided in both cases, and frankly distinguish incorrect use in the same manner that you are so obviously willing to use for cars.
Revolvers are semi-automatic weapons. Bolt action rifles have been used in mass shootings as well. You can't enfore limits on the numbers of bullets that can be stored at home without periodically auditing the home -- which the US will not tolerate no matter what (the whole governmental intrusion aspect of the 4th amendment). You can't prevent transactions between private individuals, because there are tens if not hundreds of millions of unregistered weapons and no way to audit or monitor such transactions. You can't license the possession of all firearms because there are tens if not hundreds of millions of unregistered weapons already out there and the gun owners will not comply.
All of your 'non-inadequate' measures, besides being politically impossible in this country, will not work because gun owners -- myself included -- will not comply with the mass surrender or pre-confiscation of devices that you so obviously intend. You have to convince us that the restrictions are reasonabe, or you will never accomplish your goal.
Sure thing -- we'll get right on that at the same time that you address cars, the item which kills even more people per year when misused by drunk drivers, road ragers, the inattentive, etc.