Note in the graph at the top of page 15 that having an obviously-gendered profile hurt the acceptance rates of men even more than it hurt the acceptance rates of women. This completely undermines any conclusion that women are being discriminated against in pull request acceptance.
This is just going to make them even more famous via the Streisand effect. Censorship is, and should be, completely futile. Either keep a secret at-will or deal with the consequences of everybody talking about it. The internet provides anonymous absolute free speech, and resistance is futile.
If I were in your shoes, I would not try to hide my political opinions. If my boss gave me much trouble for it, I'd quit and find another job.
A real friend is someone who knows all about you but likes you anyway. Obscuring your opinions is cowardly. But you must carefully phrase and explain things so that you are not misunderstood.
This would be a wonderful system if: 1. The government has enough information to distribute the tax equitably to all copyright copyright holders. 2. It is no longer illegal to copy and redistribute anything, because the tax already compensates the copyright holders.
This system would be excellent for the economy because it would take full advantage of the fact that the marginal cost of software is near zero. Everyone would be able to use every software tool legally and the copyright holders would still get paid equitably. The cost-per-installation model squanders the potential of zero marginal cost.
Good talk but man that guy is whiney. He sound's like my four-year-old.
It's funny that even the most idiotic microsoft bashing posts get modded up. You don't even know what an apostraphe is for, and you don't know the difference between real criticism and a baby screaming. Please go back to 6th grade where you belong.
Several points you have overlooked:
1. Many of the best works that were ever written, or composed, were written for love or for fun, not for profit, before any copyright protection existed. The more a thing is produced just to make a buck, the more likely it is to be crap. Most artists have day jobs.
2. People who like content borrowed from their friends digitally may buy it for themselves. This amounts to free advertising for the content.
3. Musicians can make more money from live performances than they make from selling CDs.
4. People who like content borrowed from their friends digitally may buy it for themselves. This amounts to free advertising for the content.
5. Whatever happened to the Street Performer Protocol? The musician gives his work away for free, and whoever so desires supports him. This system has supported many great writers and musicians.
A separate egg and sperm in the uterus are likewise a matter that will eventually turn into a human being. There is no meaningful difference for my purposes in the biochemical process of merging the two because it has no nervous system before or after. Your argument completely ignores my point about the fact that the mind is the sole thing that gives humans more value than plants.
IANAL but I know of no U.S. precedent whatsoever where someone was convicted of murder for inducing a miscarriage in the first 5 weeks. That would be about as ridiculous as trying someone for murder for forcing you to use a spermicidal douche.
A baby with a defective hart should have been aborted during the first trimester, before the defect led to actual suffering and an intractable situation. Ultrasound, etc, should be used.
There is nothing at all morally questionable about getting an abortion during the first month. Anything which lacks a nervous system is not even close to being a person. If my head were destroyed there would be no point in keeping my body alive on life support even though it is "human". For the exact same reason, a fetus cannot be considered a person until it develops a brain dur. A fetus is deserving of protection only for the purpose of improving the life of the person it develops into, and only if it will actually develop into a person. If the fetus never actually becomes a person, there is no moral ambiguity whatsoever about experimenting on it. The brain begins to develop during the 5th week of pregnancy. Before that, abortion is morally equivalent to getting your tonsils removed.
If I was a ninja, I'd throw a dagger that would remove all the bugs in redhat, decapitate bill gates, free Tibet, and make me a sandwich before returning to my hand.
You're paying for the books at the library, even if you arn't aware of it. Libraries get funding through property taxes, and sales taxes, and state income taxes. You're paying for those books, even if you never step foot inside a library.
Likewise the originator of a cracked copy of a game must have purchased the game in the first place. He is simply sharing his copy with many people the same way a library shares one copy with many people. The fact that digital transmission requires copying is immaterial.
Intellectual property is a misnomer. Patents are temporary, partial monopoly licenses granted by the government for the sole purpose of promoting innovation. A priori I shouldn't have to pay someone a license fee to use something I developed independently just because someone else I may or may not have heard of developed it first. But that's what the majority of patent lawsuits are about.
The key wording is "up to." They could say "up to 100 trillion bits per second!" and provide you with dialup and still fulfill their advertising keywording of "up to."
In normal english meaning of the phrase, that would be false advertizing. "up to" implies a least upper bound. Advertizing something capable of speeds "up to" something much higher than any speed it ever actually gets is therefore false advertizing.
Quake 3 on dialup with a 300ms ping was atrocious. The only way to hit anyone was sheer luck or if they were standing still or moving in a straight line.
Slashdot Mirror
Note in the graph at the top of page 15 that having an obviously-gendered profile hurt the acceptance rates of men even more than it hurt the acceptance rates of women. This completely undermines any conclusion that women are being discriminated against in pull request acceptance.
This is just going to make them even more famous via the Streisand effect. Censorship is, and should be, completely futile. Either keep a secret at-will or deal with the consequences of everybody talking about it. The internet provides anonymous absolute free speech, and resistance is futile.
A 3-minute video of this protest, Kasparov's arrest, and Kasparov's remarks was posted on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzKhQWVb5-A
If I were in your shoes, I would not try to hide my political opinions. If my boss gave me much trouble for it, I'd quit and find another job.
A real friend is someone who knows all about you but likes you anyway. Obscuring your opinions is cowardly. But you must carefully phrase and explain things so that you are not misunderstood.
This would be a wonderful system if:
1. The government has enough information to distribute the tax equitably to all copyright copyright holders.
2. It is no longer illegal to copy and redistribute anything, because the tax already compensates the copyright holders.
This system would be excellent for the economy because it would take full advantage of the fact that the marginal cost of software is near zero. Everyone would be able to use every software tool legally and the copyright holders would still get paid equitably. The cost-per-installation model squanders the potential of zero marginal cost.
It's funny that even the most idiotic microsoft bashing posts get modded up. You don't even know what an apostraphe is for, and you don't know the difference between real criticism and a baby screaming. Please go back to 6th grade where you belong.
Several points you have overlooked: 1. Many of the best works that were ever written, or composed, were written for love or for fun, not for profit, before any copyright protection existed. The more a thing is produced just to make a buck, the more likely it is to be crap. Most artists have day jobs. 2. People who like content borrowed from their friends digitally may buy it for themselves. This amounts to free advertising for the content. 3. Musicians can make more money from live performances than they make from selling CDs. 4. People who like content borrowed from their friends digitally may buy it for themselves. This amounts to free advertising for the content. 5. Whatever happened to the Street Performer Protocol? The musician gives his work away for free, and whoever so desires supports him. This system has supported many great writers and musicians.
A separate egg and sperm in the uterus are likewise a matter that will eventually turn into a human being. There is no meaningful difference for my purposes in the biochemical process of merging the two because it has no nervous system before or after. Your argument completely ignores my point about the fact that the mind is the sole thing that gives humans more value than plants. IANAL but I know of no U.S. precedent whatsoever where someone was convicted of murder for inducing a miscarriage in the first 5 weeks. That would be about as ridiculous as trying someone for murder for forcing you to use a spermicidal douche. A baby with a defective hart should have been aborted during the first trimester, before the defect led to actual suffering and an intractable situation. Ultrasound, etc, should be used.
energy, not force, silly!
There is nothing at all morally questionable about getting an abortion during the first month. Anything which lacks a nervous system is not even close to being a person. If my head were destroyed there would be no point in keeping my body alive on life support even though it is "human". For the exact same reason, a fetus cannot be considered a person until it develops a brain dur. A fetus is deserving of protection only for the purpose of improving the life of the person it develops into, and only if it will actually develop into a person. If the fetus never actually becomes a person, there is no moral ambiguity whatsoever about experimenting on it. The brain begins to develop during the 5th week of pregnancy. Before that, abortion is morally equivalent to getting your tonsils removed.
If I was a ninja, I'd throw a dagger that would remove all the bugs in redhat, decapitate bill gates, free Tibet, and make me a sandwich before returning to my hand.
If I was a ninja I'd throw a dagger that would write me a better virus.
If I was a ninja I'd throw one dagger to castrate Jack Thompson and Ayn Rand.
If I was a ninja, I'd throw a dagger to destroy the internet.
...I'd already have every copy of Vista.
...I'd throw a dagger from Illinois to California to castrate William Mulholland.
If I was a ninja, I'd throw a dagger to castrate every false advertizing ISP exec at once.
I'd throw a dagger that would fetch me the latest releases from blockbuster.
It's patent infringement, not "intellectual property theft."
Theft connotes bereavement where there is none.
You're paying for the books at the library, even if you arn't aware of it. Libraries get funding through property taxes, and sales taxes, and state income taxes. You're paying for those books, even if you never step foot inside a library.
Likewise the originator of a cracked copy of a game must have purchased the game in the first place. He is simply sharing his copy with many people the same way a library shares one copy with many people. The fact that digital transmission requires copying is immaterial.
those that exist in diverse gene pools are at a lower risk, both individually and collectively, from those that subsist in a proprietary monoculture."
s/from/than
That would certainly explain why almost no professional sports players are very intelligent.
Intellectual property is a misnomer. Patents are temporary, partial monopoly licenses granted by the government for the sole purpose of promoting innovation. A priori I shouldn't have to pay someone a license fee to use something I developed independently just because someone else I may or may not have heard of developed it first. But that's what the majority of patent lawsuits are about.
The key wording is "up to." They could say "up to 100 trillion bits per second!" and provide you with dialup and still fulfill their advertising keywording of "up to." In normal english meaning of the phrase, that would be false advertizing. "up to" implies a least upper bound. Advertizing something capable of speeds "up to" something much higher than any speed it ever actually gets is therefore false advertizing.
Quake 3 on dialup with a 300ms ping was atrocious. The only way to hit anyone was sheer luck or if they were standing still or moving in a straight line.