For some reason you are a suspect in a case, say murder. Now this murder you did not commit, but there is evidence that makes you a suspect, and the court is willing to try the case based on the limited evidence against you. Even if the evidence is failing to convice the jury of your guilt, they may try to put you on the stand to testify as to where you were on that night.
Perhaps you were engaged in some other crime (however minor), you now are compelled to testify and confess, and risk being charged with that crime. Doing so possibly destroys your credibility with the humans (who are automatically fallible) on the jury (remember, they may just go "oh he's a criminal anyway, he probably did this too") and secures a confession for whatever else you did. If you retain the right to remain silent, but it is allowed to be used against you: You've still destroyed your credibility and the jury can now weigh this while deciding your guilt or innocence.
Also, your FAIL3 doesn't really apply. Self-incrimination automatically assumes you have done something that would violate a law, but there is not enough/any outside proof. Possibly an unjust law. If we had a perfect system where we only charged criminals, tried by an infallible judge/jury.. we wouldn't need the 4th or 5th amendments.
From my experience when I lived in florida, delays on lights all around were too short for the way traffic drives. In Florida it was typically a good idea to sit at a green light for a second to make sure traffic stopped moving, or you'll get creamed. In VA and NC that practice gets you honked at as soon as the light turns green.
Can Google just get self-driving cars perfected already?
Annnd by this logic Xplane pirated MS Flight simulator. Halo pirated Wolfenstien 3d. etc.
It isn't piracy. If the gameplay is exactly the same (such as some clones that ONLY change the graphics) you might have something. If the game plays differently, adds features, etc, it's just another entry in the genre.
Funny you should mention donating to a charity. Charlotte, NC threw the speed cameras out because they could not operate them at a profit. The State law required 90% of fines to go to schools, not to the city or the company operating the cameras (which is, as usual where most of the profits were ending up).
Not the same as "choice of charity", but it at least removes the incentive to try and use these things to line city coffers.
Thanks, i missed that page. Still leaves open the question regarding oracle's limitation, or world one outside of the packages listed in the tables there. They are both general and specific in ways that suggest a company could argue the specific over the general. I would be more comfortable with a clear "open source software intended to run on Linux" as opposed to a specific package list.
Sooo I see a few things in the license that raise questions for me. IANAL, but here's my short list:
1) "Linux System" and "Linux Environment Components" are both poorly defined. In the definitions section it states that a Linux System is as defined on the website, but I could find no further definition when I looked (albeit quickly) around the links from the front page. Does it mean the kernel only (which is actually "Linux")? Does it mean userspace? What if my application is cross platform (Linux, BSD, etc), or is GPL and someone makes it cross platform?
2) The "exchange of value" for a contract seems to be based on "You get all of our patents, we get all of yours". What if I have 0 patents, and never plan to patent anything? Could I be held to have not held up my end of the bargin and be undeserving of the patent protection?
3) Limitation Elections are not transparent. Oracle signed on, but exercised a limitation election (as has Geeknet, based on http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/licensees.php). Which patents were excluded? If I sign on, how can I know which patents are explicitly not licensed to me via the OIN agreement?
Yeah, but it's first on the list to get checked now.. So I've changed mine to "Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit"
except most systems don't like it, So I'm stuck with "LoremIpsumDolor"
I won't disagree. Many of the subjects outside of censorship that Bennett pontificates on make me roll my eyes and stop reading. But the question was "Why does this guy get front page exposure".. If Stallman decided to pontificate on electorate theory he'd probably make the front page just as fast.
Congress built the cliff, willingly walked out on to and then stood around arguing about how to get down while half of them were trying to saw themselves off of it Wiley Coyote style.
Every single person (regardless of party affiliation) who voted *for* this charade in the first place should be voted out of office. Maybe the next person will get the message that you can't fool all of the people all of the time. I don't particularly care if we keep the same party in the seat, just change the person.
If that was your first step into Linux, my hat is off to you.
Sadly, the number of Admins who know how or have done a Linux From Scratch (or even can compile a package from source) are low these days. Personally, I think anyone who is a Senior Admin should have done this at some point.
The truth is that Desmond Miles saved us all at the last minute. Otherwise it would have been much worse. However, he let out some sort of demi-god thing that's going to make ubisoft lots of money for the next few years.
. And being a lowly software developer with zero stock in Microsoft (okay, I don't really track my 401k funds down to the stock), I sort of have to ask shareholders a big question: If you want to oust Ballmer over Windows 8 and Surface tablet, why didn't you simply sell all your shares and even short the stock when they debuted?
I think what's being suggested here is the bigger shareholders (who likely have someone on the board) that are taking longer term views (usually retirement/401k/etc funds) that see microsoft as a fairly safe long term bet are starting to get this itchy feeling. The things that microsoft has handled badly (Vista, Mobile in general, now windows 8 is getting much the same reaction as vista, developers developers developers..) are starting to look like a bad trend. These aren't the guys who are just going to go "eh, one bad thing, short the stock!" these are guys who will sit back and go "bump in the road" and wait. When the bumps keep coming they tend to wake up and demand change.
I mean, hindsight is 20/20 and shareholders get to play this game where they read the SEC reports on these things, then they get to sit there watching and then if these products fail they basically go on a litigation witch hunt on whoever made these decisions.
I can understand shareholders suing over actual gross negligence or actual shady accounting and misreporting to the SEC. But it should be the SEC who decides which company to sue over that.
This isn't suing, this is shareholders going "change the captain before we hit more rocks"
The question about "ignoring dire real world consequences" is a gross oversimplification.
I think if you talked to most of those who support drone strikes they probably see this as an alternative to sending flesh and blood troops to try and deal with the situation. Even sending a traditional plane puts a soldier in potential harm's way. To most people "Use drones instead, they are expendable" is an easy answer.
Most people are not going to weigh "are we hitting the right targets, have we caused collateral damage?" they are going to look at it as "Are we risking the lives of people who are on Our Side(TM, patent pending)"
I got it, I got it, I got it! I got your number on the wall! I got it, I got it, I got it! For a good time, for a good time call....
Jenny, don't change your number. I need to make you mine. Jenny. I'll call your number,
812a11b49b1a1cce5dd9a0018899501e
812a11b49b1a1cce5dd9a0018899501e
Slashdot Mirror
For some reason you are a suspect in a case, say murder. Now this murder you did not commit, but there is evidence that makes you a suspect, and the court is willing to try the case based on the limited evidence against you. Even if the evidence is failing to convice the jury of your guilt, they may try to put you on the stand to testify as to where you were on that night.
Perhaps you were engaged in some other crime (however minor), you now are compelled to testify and confess, and risk being charged with that crime. Doing so possibly destroys your credibility with the humans (who are automatically fallible) on the jury (remember, they may just go "oh he's a criminal anyway, he probably did this too") and secures a confession for whatever else you did. If you retain the right to remain silent, but it is allowed to be used against you: You've still destroyed your credibility and the jury can now weigh this while deciding your guilt or innocence.
Also, your FAIL3 doesn't really apply. Self-incrimination automatically assumes you have done something that would violate a law, but there is not enough/any outside proof. Possibly an unjust law.
If we had a perfect system where we only charged criminals, tried by an infallible judge/jury.. we wouldn't need the 4th or 5th amendments.
From my experience when I lived in florida, delays on lights all around were too short for the way traffic drives. In Florida it was typically a good idea to sit at a green light for a second to make sure traffic stopped moving, or you'll get creamed. In VA and NC that practice gets you honked at as soon as the light turns green.
Can Google just get self-driving cars perfected already?
Just use Java, it handles garbage collection automatically.
Annnd by this logic Xplane pirated MS Flight simulator. Halo pirated Wolfenstien 3d. etc.
It isn't piracy. If the gameplay is exactly the same (such as some clones that ONLY change the graphics) you might have something. If the game plays differently, adds features, etc, it's just another entry in the genre.
...Or ya know, mandate use of a governor.
Funny you should mention donating to a charity. Charlotte, NC threw the speed cameras out because they could not operate them at a profit. The State law required 90% of fines to go to schools, not to the city or the company operating the cameras (which is, as usual where most of the profits were ending up).
Not the same as "choice of charity", but it at least removes the incentive to try and use these things to line city coffers.
Thanks, i missed that page. Still leaves open the question regarding oracle's limitation, or world one outside of the packages listed in the tables there. They are both general and specific in ways that suggest a company could argue the specific over the general. I would be more comfortable with a clear "open source software intended to run on Linux" as opposed to a specific package list.
Sooo I see a few things in the license that raise questions for me. IANAL, but here's my short list:
1) "Linux System" and "Linux Environment Components" are both poorly defined. In the definitions section it states that a Linux System is as defined on the website, but I could find no further definition when I looked (albeit quickly) around the links from the front page. Does it mean the kernel only (which is actually "Linux")? Does it mean userspace? What if my application is cross platform (Linux, BSD, etc), or is GPL and someone makes it cross platform?
2) The "exchange of value" for a contract seems to be based on "You get all of our patents, we get all of yours". What if I have 0 patents, and never plan to patent anything? Could I be held to have not held up my end of the bargin and be undeserving of the patent protection?
3) Limitation Elections are not transparent. Oracle signed on, but exercised a limitation election (as has Geeknet, based on http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/licensees.php). Which patents were excluded? If I sign on, how can I know which patents are explicitly not licensed to me via the OIN agreement?
What about vampires, zombies, and other undead? How can this fit into a modern multi-vital society?
And now someone, somewhere, is frantically photoshopping this together.(Or is it "GIMPing", given his fanbase?)
Yeah, but it's first on the list to get checked now.. So I've changed mine to "Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit"
except most systems don't like it, So I'm stuck with "LoremIpsumDolor"
I won't disagree. Many of the subjects outside of censorship that Bennett pontificates on make me roll my eyes and stop reading. But the question was "Why does this guy get front page exposure".. If Stallman decided to pontificate on electorate theory he'd probably make the front page just as fast.
Why does he get front page exposure? Because he's Bennett.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennett_Haselton
You may not agree with him, or think that there is a problem here. But he's not exactly a moron.
MBAs complain less when you send half their number to the butcher.
Congress built the cliff, willingly walked out on to and then stood around arguing about how to get down while half of them were trying to saw themselves off of it Wiley Coyote style.
Every single person (regardless of party affiliation) who voted *for* this charade in the first place should be voted out of office. Maybe the next person will get the message that you can't fool all of the people all of the time. I don't particularly care if we keep the same party in the seat, just change the person.
If that was your first step into Linux, my hat is off to you.
Sadly, the number of Admins who know how or have done a Linux From Scratch (or even can compile a package from source) are low these days. Personally, I think anyone who is a Senior Admin should have done this at some point.
The truth is that Desmond Miles saved us all at the last minute. Otherwise it would have been much worse. However, he let out some sort of demi-god thing that's going to make ubisoft lots of money for the next few years.
Only if you live in a state with decent castle doctrine :) Otherwise, Mr. 9mm is just going to get you in trouble...
I think I found your secret message:
OVERALL MS BEATING THE INDUSTRY APPLE MUCH MUCH MAY LOT CEO
limp encyclopedic hero ate oval bagels thus tantrum, yum
Was I right?
Or was it simpler? APPLE BEATING MS OVERALL. MUCH INDUSTRY. CEO MAY LOT... no wait.. that isn't making much sense, I think I got it the first time.
Seriously though. what's with the CAPITALIZING RANDOM words? it MAY BE.. no it is.. VERY ANNOYING.
. And being a lowly software developer with zero stock in Microsoft (okay, I don't really track my 401k funds down to the stock), I sort of have to ask shareholders a big question: If you want to oust Ballmer over Windows 8 and Surface tablet, why didn't you simply sell all your shares and even short the stock when they debuted?
I think what's being suggested here is the bigger shareholders (who likely have someone on the board) that are taking longer term views (usually retirement/401k/etc funds) that see microsoft as a fairly safe long term bet are starting to get this itchy feeling.
The things that microsoft has handled badly (Vista, Mobile in general, now windows 8 is getting much the same reaction as vista, developers developers developers..) are starting to look like a bad trend. These aren't the guys who are just going to go "eh, one bad thing, short the stock!" these are guys who will sit back and go "bump in the road" and wait. When the bumps keep coming they tend to wake up and demand change.
I mean, hindsight is 20/20 and shareholders get to play this game where they read the SEC reports on these things, then they get to sit there watching and then if these products fail they basically go on a litigation witch hunt on whoever made these decisions.
I can understand shareholders suing over actual gross negligence or actual shady accounting and misreporting to the SEC. But it should be the SEC who decides which company to sue over that.
This isn't suing, this is shareholders going "change the captain before we hit more rocks"
The question about "ignoring dire real world consequences" is a gross oversimplification.
I think if you talked to most of those who support drone strikes they probably see this as an alternative to sending flesh and blood troops to try and deal with the situation. Even sending a traditional plane puts a soldier in potential harm's way. To most people "Use drones instead, they are expendable" is an easy answer.
Most people are not going to weigh "are we hitting the right targets, have we caused collateral damage?" they are going to look at it as "Are we risking the lives of people who are on Our Side(TM, patent pending)"
Correlation is not Causation, but it's close enough for a conspiracy theory.
They already made it and named it the uninspired Ununpentium .
If this Xcom is as successful as the first one.. I'm sure scientists who work on it will be "unoffically" calling it Elerium.
I got it, I got it, I got it!
I got your number on the wall!
I got it, I got it, I got it!
For a good time, for a good time call....
Jenny, don't change your number.
I need to make you mine.
Jenny. I'll call your number,
812a11b49b1a1cce5dd9a0018899501e
812a11b49b1a1cce5dd9a0018899501e
Maybe not as catchy as 867-5309?
Dice will just get filled with a bunch of accounts belonging to A. Nony Mous, John Smith, and UCant SeeMe.