You can't get a refund for anything on the Playstation Network.
I managed to get around $3 back when I declined one of their EULA updates, which was the amount left in my virtual "wallet" (leftover from renting movies, as they charge in minimum $5 increments). I also got a good price on eBay by selling my PS3.
Sigh. You need to look at the actual claims. That line just describes what the patent accomplishes, not how.
Yes, this is said in nearly every Slashdot story about patents. Yet in almost all cases, the how is obvious once you know what the idea is, and the only things the claims do is describe it in an obscure fashion.
So currently under federal law abortion is legal in general can only be banned in specific cases. Paul wants to get rid of that law. And you don't think that is tantamount to making abortions illegal? He wants to make it easier for other to make abortion illegal making it inevitable in some places. So yes, he wants to make abortion illegal, otherwise he wouldn't be doing anything on this topic.
And what about federal drug laws? States like California that have passed medical marijuana laws continually bump into the Feds. He has the same answer -- don't let the Feds regulate and let the states decide, which means there would be more personal drug use allowed than there is now.
Paul is hypocritical on this issue. He doesn't value personal freedom, he values choices being made at the government level where his personal opinions are most likely to be enforced as law.
I think that's a little harsh. He's pretty much a conservative constitutionalist, and not the pick-and-choose kind, either.
If that was the case then the tivoization clause in the GPLv3 is redundant
Tivoization was a different issue. The problem wasn't that the source code wasn't available -- it was. The problem was there was no actual way for the end user to modify the code because the hardware only allowed signed code to run, defeating one of the purposes of the GPL.
I do check, and I missed it, and it was an honest mistake. That's a huge difference from intentionally not following the basic convention to start sentences with capitals.
I don't understand, and I don't read long texts without capitalization. Your comments may not be "full articles", but they are long texts publicized for a wide audience.
I consider it rude to not follow basic conventions, as it places a burden on the reader and diminishes the value of conventions used in language.
If you're going to right paragraphs of text it would help if you used conventional capitalization. I know it's common in the instant/text/tweet messaging world to forgo them, but they really help with readability in longer texts.
So how do you logically derive the answer to every possible decision that comes up that involves tradeoffs? Do you eat a perfectly healthy lifestyle? Have you never sinned? Why do so many Muslims come up with different answers after reading the same book?
I am calling to the consistency of logical and rational approach to everything by atheists.
There's a big difference in what you believe intellectually versus the values you place on various behaviors. People smoke and drink because it gives them pleasure and it is hard to quit. Whether the pleasure is worth the risk is a matter of personal values.
Furthermore, a person might decide that they rationally don't want to smoke, but be unable to stop anyways because they can't overcome their desire.
Atheists are not robots. Life isn't all about logic. However, when it comes to believing in deities, atheists have decided that the rational choice is not to believe due to the lack of evidence, or in many cases, the contrary evidence.
No doubt there are truly trollish posts, but look at how the word is actually being used. It has become meaningless for all practical purposes, especially in any kind of Internet debate.
Some of that is a persona, especially the part where he acts like he's trying to get into Terry's pants, but I think a lot of what he says is unadulterated truth. He's honest in that he's just putting on a show with Kiss. He's honest that men like to sleep with a lot of women. He's honest that money is important.
It was also interesting when he was talking about his childhood and how he rejected his Jewish upbringing after coming to America. Overall it was a good interview, though a bit cringe-worthy in parts.
Why? What difference does it make if you do or don't go without? Serious question.
The serious answer is that it's too easy to rationalize to yourself that you wouldn't have bought it legit anyways, so you're going to get it illicitly. If you force yourself to only access things legitimately, then you know you aren't fooling yourself.
Nobody has a vested interest in the universe's existance
This is a matter of philosophy and personal feelings. There are lots of people that care about the fate of humanity even though they know they won't be around to see it.
It's very telling that Microsoft is one of three largest supporters of Apache.
Microsoft always has an ulterior motive. Given the rapid adoption and buzz surrounding open source, Microsoft decided to play nice for public relations in some areas.
When it suited them, they rattled their patent saber and extracted a licensing deal from Novell. They forced companies into paying money for Android. They haven't been supportive of open standards for the web for things like video.
In general, patents for software are poisonous to open source, but lately Microsoft has been a big bully in this arena. It used to be the case that Microsoft used their patents as a defensive measure (threat of counter-suit), not an offensive one.
So fuck Microsoft and their faux open source embrace.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a loosing battle, now.
Who does this "put off" other than techno-geeks that read sites like /.?
And even then the most he could muster was "seriously considering".
You can't get a refund for anything on the Playstation Network.
I managed to get around $3 back when I declined one of their EULA updates, which was the amount left in my virtual "wallet" (leftover from renting movies, as they charge in minimum $5 increments). I also got a good price on eBay by selling my PS3.
Sigh. You need to look at the actual claims. That line just describes what the patent accomplishes, not how.
Yes, this is said in nearly every Slashdot story about patents. Yet in almost all cases, the how is obvious once you know what the idea is, and the only things the claims do is describe it in an obscure fashion.
the third stringer will be declared an "enemy of the Juce ideal" and be promptly exiled or possibly shot.
If the generals are really in charge then they'll just keep him as a puppet.
Did somebody hack your account? I know some people like to play devil's advocate, but this is getting a bit ridiculous.
So currently under federal law abortion is legal in general can only be banned in specific cases. Paul wants to get rid of that law. And you don't think that is tantamount to making abortions illegal? He wants to make it easier for other to make abortion illegal making it inevitable in some places. So yes, he wants to make abortion illegal, otherwise he wouldn't be doing anything on this topic.
And what about federal drug laws? States like California that have passed medical marijuana laws continually bump into the Feds. He has the same answer -- don't let the Feds regulate and let the states decide, which means there would be more personal drug use allowed than there is now.
Paul is hypocritical on this issue. He doesn't value personal freedom, he values choices being made at the government level where his personal opinions are most likely to be enforced as law.
I think that's a little harsh. He's pretty much a conservative constitutionalist, and not the pick-and-choose kind, either.
If that was the case then the tivoization clause in the GPLv3 is redundant
Tivoization was a different issue. The problem wasn't that the source code wasn't available -- it was. The problem was there was no actual way for the end user to modify the code because the hardware only allowed signed code to run, defeating one of the purposes of the GPL.
I do check, and I missed it, and it was an honest mistake. That's a huge difference from intentionally not following the basic convention to start sentences with capitals.
I don't understand, and I don't read long texts without capitalization. Your comments may not be "full articles", but they are long texts publicized for a wide audience.
I consider it rude to not follow basic conventions, as it places a burden on the reader and diminishes the value of conventions used in language.
If you're going to right paragraphs of text it would help if you used conventional capitalization. I know it's common in the instant/text/tweet messaging world to forgo them, but they really help with readability in longer texts.
I did my part and voted for someone intelligent. You get the government you deserve, not the one you need.
So if he had lost, you would have gotten the government you deserved?
So how do you logically derive the answer to every possible decision that comes up that involves tradeoffs? Do you eat a perfectly healthy lifestyle? Have you never sinned? Why do so many Muslims come up with different answers after reading the same book?
Because personal values are not logical.
I am calling to the consistency of logical and rational approach to everything by atheists.
There's a big difference in what you believe intellectually versus the values you place on various behaviors. People smoke and drink because it gives them pleasure and it is hard to quit. Whether the pleasure is worth the risk is a matter of personal values.
Furthermore, a person might decide that they rationally don't want to smoke, but be unable to stop anyways because they can't overcome their desire.
Atheists are not robots. Life isn't all about logic. However, when it comes to believing in deities, atheists have decided that the rational choice is not to believe due to the lack of evidence, or in many cases, the contrary evidence.
because nobody likes to be told what to do
I hate it, but mod-commanding works on Slashdot.
No doubt there are truly trollish posts, but look at how the word is actually being used. It has become meaningless for all practical purposes, especially in any kind of Internet debate.
By paying them off each month you are not actaully making any money for the issuer, you are a customer they don not want.
They actually make money every time you purchase something. Whether this is enough money to cover their expenses depends on the issuing bank.
HAHAHA hypocrisy overload!
Nick Simmons != Gene Simmons
Now if Gene tried to bullshit that what his son did was OK, then you'd have a point.
Some of that is a persona, especially the part where he acts like he's trying to get into Terry's pants, but I think a lot of what he says is unadulterated truth. He's honest in that he's just putting on a show with Kiss. He's honest that men like to sleep with a lot of women. He's honest that money is important.
It was also interesting when he was talking about his childhood and how he rejected his Jewish upbringing after coming to America. Overall it was a good interview, though a bit cringe-worthy in parts.
Troll
A meaningless word tossed around in Internet disputes.
Why? What difference does it make if you do or don't go without? Serious question.
The serious answer is that it's too easy to rationalize to yourself that you wouldn't have bought it legit anyways, so you're going to get it illicitly. If you force yourself to only access things legitimately, then you know you aren't fooling yourself.
Nobody has a vested interest in the universe's existance
This is a matter of philosophy and personal feelings. There are lots of people that care about the fate of humanity even though they know they won't be around to see it.
Apple didn't actually make any effort to restrict open source
But they did make an effort to restrict the app model on their devices, and it's because of this restriction that the GPL ran into problems.
It's very telling that Microsoft is one of three largest supporters of Apache.
Microsoft always has an ulterior motive. Given the rapid adoption and buzz surrounding open source, Microsoft decided to play nice for public relations in some areas.
When it suited them, they rattled their patent saber and extracted a licensing deal from Novell. They forced companies into paying money for Android. They haven't been supportive of open standards for the web for things like video.
In general, patents for software are poisonous to open source, but lately Microsoft has been a big bully in this arena. It used to be the case that Microsoft used their patents as a defensive measure (threat of counter-suit), not an offensive one.
So fuck Microsoft and their faux open source embrace.