The fact that teens sneak out does not mean that the parents aren't lousy.
Augh!!!!! Reword that immediately, its burning my eyes. Do you know where burden of proof lies? It lies on the one making the assertion. You are not supposed to assume something until evidence to the contrary, you are supposed to assume something given evidence, and what the parent poster said was that we cannot assume it was bad parenting given the small amount of details that we were given.
I didn't sneak out, because I knew I could go to my parents and tell them exactly where I was going.
So you would have no problem with telling them when you were 14 that you were going to go have dinner and a movie with a 19 year old young man?
I am quite sure it was bad parenting that got her in that situation, but I would never be so silly as to assert it given so few details. What I do think is evidence of their bad parenting is that they somehow expect that MySpace was responsible for their daughter going to dinner and a movie with a 19 year old and then going to his apartment afterwards of her own free will and long after MySpace was out of the picture...
The fact that teens sneak out does not mean that the parents aren't lousy.
Augh!!! Reword that immediately, its burning my eyes. Do you know where burden of proof lies? It lies on the one making the assertion. You are not supposed to assume something until evidence to the contrary, you are supposed to assume something given evidence, and what the parent poster said was that we cannot assume it was bad parenting given the small amount of details that we were given.
I didn't sneak out, because I knew I could go to my parents and tell them exactly where I was going.
So you would have no problem with telling them when you were 14 that you were going to go have dinner and a movie with a 19 year old young man?
I am quite sure it was bad parenting that got her in that situation, but I would never be so silly as to assert it given so few details. What I do think is evidence of their bad parenting is that they somehow expect that MySpace was responsible for their daughter going to dinner and a movie with a 19 year old and then going to his apartment afterwards of her own free will and long after MySpace was out of the picture.
Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"
on
Apple vs Bloggers
·
· Score: 1
Quotes or not, "trade secrets" count as just that - secrets.
As soon as the whole world knows about them, they lose that status.
Yeah, except when it comes to the legal system, they don't use the layman's definition of words. The definition you find in the dictionary of "Secret" has nothing to do with what a "trade secret" is, or how the law treats it. If that was the case, I could use secret-level government information I obtain through my job and reveal it and magically it wouldn't be protected anymore!
Check the earlier posts that people were posting for the links. I mean honestly, if it was so obviously not illegal the corporate lawyers, who probably know a good bit more about law than the people on this site, would have realized the case would have been thrown before ever making it to court.
Companies have things like NDAs precisely to keep "trade secrets" a "secret". If they counted as legally-protected IP, a company would hold a patent on them instead.
"Trade secrets" are not just a catch phrase. They are legally protected apart from simply the NDAs, and they are different than patents.
Since the fact that Evolution didn't stop with Darwin was already covered, I'd like to tackle this:
He freely admitted that evolution could not explain complex organs like the eye.
I don't know why everybody keeps pointing to the eye as some organ that had to be intelligently designed. It is easy enough to show how the eye developed from primitive structures that were only able to sense general light levels, with each slight improvement giving a minor competitive edge to that organism. MORESO, there is one GIANT flaw in the eye that it seems no logical, intelligent being would have designed..... the blind spot!
Common engineering sense (is that an oxymoron?) would dictate that you put the neural connections in the BACKSIDE of the retina instead of running them through the front, creating a lovely small patch of blindness in each retina.
Once I saw an ID video that was offering "evidence" of an intelligent designer by showing how well bananas were designed. that they perfectly fit in the human hand and even had an "easy open tab" just like a soda can. He stated that there is no reason we would think a soda can formed by chance, so why should we assume that this banana formed on its own?
Anyone who actually bought his argument should have their debating rights permanently taken away. First of all, soda cans do not reproduce. Secondly, fruit having that form are easier for us to each, which is EXACTLY why they're more likely to reproduce in accordance with natural selection because they spread their fruit through the feces of animals that ingest them. Thirdly, guess who else eats bananas? APES!
Finally, my whopper of them all... did anyone notice how they didn't use coconuts as an example?
Oh yeah, I should have mentioned that you're brow-beating the wrong crowd. Like Oh_my said, most catholics DON'T follow the literal interpretation. Heck, even the pope himself came out and said that the bible wasn't meant to be taken literally and that there's no reason catholic faith and evolution should disagree.
Go to wikipedia and type in Occam's (or Okham's) Razor. Did people believe in X-rays back then? No. We don't know that there aren't faeries living inside the moon... should we start believing in those until science proves it true as well?
You destroyed your own argument. Its BECAUSE there are 6 billion people that burning clean fuels makes such a huge difference. Say one person changes from "dirty" to clean fuels... you're right, not much of an impact.
But when you have 6 billion people, even if it is still causing a problem burning clean fuels like you say, it's all going to happen a lot faster and harder burning traditional fuels.
Unless your real intent was to say that you know more than the scientific community at large because you watch FOX News and are thus better educated in such matters, and global warming is not at all worsened by the effects of burning fuel.
Luckily "being a watchdog" and "making money" practially go hand in hand now days. What's one kind of story that sells very well?
Now, of course, they're going to cover a bunch of other bs too just because its sensational, but you know they're going to come down on anyone or any group that's been doing something "scandalous".
Right idea, but I think there are a couple corrections that need to be made. Triangulation is moreso about making sure you're getting signals from 3 different towers, than it is picking up the right RF. Also, publically-available GPS is not that good (but certainly still good enough to do the trick anyway).
Now, I might be wrong on this, but doesn't a non-gps phone have to be in or making a call in order for them to track the signal via traingulation?
While I otherwise agree with your point and am assuming the story is complete BS, you're totally wrong on that part about "shitloads" of babies waiting to be adopted. What there are "shitloads" of are CHILDREN waiting to be adopted, many who weren't raised so well during the first years of their life or had bad events happen to them, and also some that are suffering from any number of ailments, either physiological or psychological. Babies to adopt are in quite high demand, it's KIDS and TEENS waiting for adoption that are in such large supply.
I think what he was saying is that you go for the experience. Of course you usually need money (unless you want to argue the shaky point of scholarships), but your argument slightly twists his point.
Some people are actors in order to make money to "save them time" later, others just love playing the role.
Some go to school to make money later on, others just love the experience, and yet some others make money so they can enjoy school later on. Point being it really isn't stupid for someone to spend all that money on college if they love the experience... and they get into a field they love afterwards, and still wind up with enough cash in the end to live happily and comfortably.
So then where do you get the technical experts to support businesses, or do you propose everyone sell collectable socks to each other over the internet?
For a second I thought I liked you, until I realized you had it the other way around. =P
Not that I should talk, I love Macs just from growing up on them, but I've only ever actually owned Linux/Windows setups. =\
I may have to get one of those, I've long had a dream of setting up a box of my own to boot Mac, Windows, and Linux OSes. Now I can get a Mac as my next box and not have to listen to my wife complain.
I am kind of sad to see them moving to Intel procs now, but I'm not sure why... =\
Slashdot Mirror
Augh!!!!! Reword that immediately, its burning my eyes. Do you know where burden of proof lies? It lies on the one making the assertion. You are not supposed to assume something until evidence to the contrary, you are supposed to assume something given evidence, and what the parent poster said was that we cannot assume it was bad parenting given the small amount of details that we were given.
I didn't sneak out, because I knew I could go to my parents and tell them exactly where I was going.
So you would have no problem with telling them when you were 14 that you were going to go have dinner and a movie with a 19 year old young man?
I am quite sure it was bad parenting that got her in that situation, but I would never be so silly as to assert it given so few details. What I do think is evidence of their bad parenting is that they somehow expect that MySpace was responsible for their daughter going to dinner and a movie with a 19 year old and then going to his apartment afterwards of her own free will and long after MySpace was out of the picture...
The fact that teens sneak out does not mean that the parents aren't lousy. Augh!!! Reword that immediately, its burning my eyes. Do you know where burden of proof lies? It lies on the one making the assertion. You are not supposed to assume something until evidence to the contrary, you are supposed to assume something given evidence, and what the parent poster said was that we cannot assume it was bad parenting given the small amount of details that we were given. I didn't sneak out, because I knew I could go to my parents and tell them exactly where I was going. So you would have no problem with telling them when you were 14 that you were going to go have dinner and a movie with a 19 year old young man? I am quite sure it was bad parenting that got her in that situation, but I would never be so silly as to assert it given so few details. What I do think is evidence of their bad parenting is that they somehow expect that MySpace was responsible for their daughter going to dinner and a movie with a 19 year old and then going to his apartment afterwards of her own free will and long after MySpace was out of the picture.
Quotes or not, "trade secrets" count as just that - secrets. As soon as the whole world knows about them, they lose that status. Yeah, except when it comes to the legal system, they don't use the layman's definition of words. The definition you find in the dictionary of "Secret" has nothing to do with what a "trade secret" is, or how the law treats it. If that was the case, I could use secret-level government information I obtain through my job and reveal it and magically it wouldn't be protected anymore! Check the earlier posts that people were posting for the links. I mean honestly, if it was so obviously not illegal the corporate lawyers, who probably know a good bit more about law than the people on this site, would have realized the case would have been thrown before ever making it to court. Companies have things like NDAs precisely to keep "trade secrets" a "secret". If they counted as legally-protected IP, a company would hold a patent on them instead. "Trade secrets" are not just a catch phrase. They are legally protected apart from simply the NDAs, and they are different than patents.
He freely admitted that evolution could not explain complex organs like the eye.
I don't know why everybody keeps pointing to the eye as some organ that had to be intelligently designed. It is easy enough to show how the eye developed from primitive structures that were only able to sense general light levels, with each slight improvement giving a minor competitive edge to that organism. MORESO, there is one GIANT flaw in the eye that it seems no logical, intelligent being would have designed..... the blind spot!
Common engineering sense (is that an oxymoron?) would dictate that you put the neural connections in the BACKSIDE of the retina instead of running them through the front, creating a lovely small patch of blindness in each retina.
Once I saw an ID video that was offering "evidence" of an intelligent designer by showing how well bananas were designed. that they perfectly fit in the human hand and even had an "easy open tab" just like a soda can. He stated that there is no reason we would think a soda can formed by chance, so why should we assume that this banana formed on its own?
Anyone who actually bought his argument should have their debating rights permanently taken away. First of all, soda cans do not reproduce. Secondly, fruit having that form are easier for us to each, which is EXACTLY why they're more likely to reproduce in accordance with natural selection because they spread their fruit through the feces of animals that ingest them. Thirdly, guess who else eats bananas? APES!
Finally, my whopper of them all... did anyone notice how they didn't use coconuts as an example?
Oh yeah, I should have mentioned that you're brow-beating the wrong crowd. Like Oh_my said, most catholics DON'T follow the literal interpretation. Heck, even the pope himself came out and said that the bible wasn't meant to be taken literally and that there's no reason catholic faith and evolution should disagree.
You've just described my beliefs pretty accurately. ;)
Go to wikipedia and type in Occam's (or Okham's) Razor. Did people believe in X-rays back then? No. We don't know that there aren't faeries living inside the moon... should we start believing in those until science proves it true as well?
Watch out man, two people have already caught on to your cleverly disguised IQ comment! ;)
But when you have 6 billion people, even if it is still causing a problem burning clean fuels like you say, it's all going to happen a lot faster and harder burning traditional fuels.
Unless your real intent was to say that you know more than the scientific community at large because you watch FOX News and are thus better educated in such matters, and global warming is not at all worsened by the effects of burning fuel.
To me, the problem appears to be that we don't have enough awkward analogies... =\ /sarcasm
=P
Luckily "being a watchdog" and "making money" practially go hand in hand now days. What's one kind of story that sells very well? Now, of course, they're going to cover a bunch of other bs too just because its sensational, but you know they're going to come down on anyone or any group that's been doing something "scandalous".
http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/faq/how_pr otect/recipe.htm
That's what I was going from, I guess I just didn't word it properly, or moreso, was detailed enough.
Right idea, but I think there are a couple corrections that need to be made. Triangulation is moreso about making sure you're getting signals from 3 different towers, than it is picking up the right RF. Also, publically-available GPS is not that good (but certainly still good enough to do the trick anyway).
Now, I might be wrong on this, but doesn't a non-gps phone have to be in or making a call in order for them to track the signal via traingulation?
While I otherwise agree with your point and am assuming the story is complete BS, you're totally wrong on that part about "shitloads" of babies waiting to be adopted. What there are "shitloads" of are CHILDREN waiting to be adopted, many who weren't raised so well during the first years of their life or had bad events happen to them, and also some that are suffering from any number of ailments, either physiological or psychological. Babies to adopt are in quite high demand, it's KIDS and TEENS waiting for adoption that are in such large supply.
I think what he was saying is that you go for the experience. Of course you usually need money (unless you want to argue the shaky point of scholarships), but your argument slightly twists his point. Some people are actors in order to make money to "save them time" later, others just love playing the role. Some go to school to make money later on, others just love the experience, and yet some others make money so they can enjoy school later on. Point being it really isn't stupid for someone to spend all that money on college if they love the experience... and they get into a field they love afterwards, and still wind up with enough cash in the end to live happily and comfortably.
So then where do you get the technical experts to support businesses, or do you propose everyone sell collectable socks to each other over the internet?
They can, however, be copyrighted.
For a second I thought I liked you, until I realized you had it the other way around. =P Not that I should talk, I love Macs just from growing up on them, but I've only ever actually owned Linux/Windows setups. =\
I may have to get one of those, I've long had a dream of setting up a box of my own to boot Mac, Windows, and Linux OSes. Now I can get a Mac as my next box and not have to listen to my wife complain. I am kind of sad to see them moving to Intel procs now, but I'm not sure why... =\