You are aware that any play by Shakespeare that has a woman in the cast would not truly be Shakespeare? Shakespeare's plays were always played by an all male cast. He may not have had an issue.
Besides there have been trans people everywhere throughout history. It is only in a few barbaric cultures where it has ever been a major issue
Yes, but! Americans clearly do not understand the terms when outsiders read their dicussions. Please do not lol at this because to almost everyone outside of America, Hilary is extremely right wing. An authoritarian and a war monger.
The only thing to disagree with in the statement made "Considering that Hillary Clinton is extremely hard right, more right wing (but less authoritarian) than Trump," is the "less authoritarian".
There are no democracies, no communisms that I am aware of although many claim one of those. What is important for a country is its constitution and respect for it, rather than the actual executives and their methodologies.
You understand what a straw man is, don't you? I will give you a clue. When you use such a straw man every one knows its a worthless post. A worthless argument.
Dp not get ideas of competency. You have no idea how to argue in a non-hostile fashion. I am not interested in pointing out to you which sentence. You saw it, I saw it, everyone saw it. You attempt at 'recovery' has failed. Unless you have something to actually say, then it is not possible for us to communicate. I will not abet your self aggrandisment.
You are really good at debate. But to me 'debate' is not the point. The point of a debate is to win regardless or veracity, accuracy or anything really. Debate is a game and pointless except for the fact that it currently drives almost everyones opinion.
Both of us know that ISIS (Daesh please, it is more insulting) would not give a damn about copyright or even paying you and would just take it anyway. So your point was moot before you even started typing. A good debating technique but of zero societal value. Why did it make it to paper? The reason is clear from the rest of the paragraph. There you attempt character assassination, to what point? Your entire paragraph is semantically null i.e. worthless. In fact so is the rest of the post.
If you had nothing but self adulation and denigrating of others to say why did you even post? I mean it is not as if you have shown anything to be self adulating about.
Not such a subtle troll really
The only thing of value is the last paragraph but even then you continue with unnecessary aggression and false statements about your perceived 'oponent'. Saying 'law should' is not proposing a law. It is proposing that some principles should be considered in formulation law. Or have you decided that law is unnecessary? (Sorry, I should not imitate your style).
We are a bit different. We have a semi socialised medical system in the first place. But it spreads wider than that. If you are injured in a car accident your medical needs will be covered. The car must be registered and there is a mandatory (injury) insurance component in that. But that just determines where the bill will go. The the injured will all be covered because necessary medical treatment is always covered here (social medicine). So even if the car was not registered and you were racing it in a paddock you are still not going to get a bill from the hospital. At least not an unaffordable one.
Now I agree there are property and pain and suffering issues that may go to courts, criminal and civil but mostly the civil cases are smaller than those in the US and more concerned with accommodating an injured victim than mollifying them.
I do not think that criminal charges are enough sometimes though. That facetiming driver should get a thirty year sentence with a minimum of twenty five to be served in hard labor. Here they would be out in a few years.
The idiot caused the accident. Idiots do. We would not need road laws (or many, if any, other laws) but for idiots. But I know no one not even excusing myself who is not an idiot at times. So we have rules and the less idiotic obey them - mostly. Probably proportional to idiocy
But we are talking about social responsibility here. Something that is in some measure, already required of a company (or a person).
Let us look at a slightly different software situation. Say I write and sell a program, some software. After a while my product is discovered to have an easily fixable but disastrous bug. A fix and redistribution (or at least inform and make available) should be mandatory behaviour on my part and doing this should not produce a profit. But provided I word the licence correctly I am not responsible for the disaster or damages pertaining to such. I had not anticipated it and it was not negligence to fail in that anticipation.
But if I knew the bug was there before I sold the software then I would be liable for the disaster and damages because I knew it could occur. This is exactly the knowledge that Apple demonstrated it had when it applied for the patent.
Wether or not Apple has any liability depends on what that patent actually describes and wether it was possible to implement it. If Apple did not want to lose sales because people did not like it (like they did not like seat belts) then Apple are possibly in the poop.
I do not disagree. I was thinking of the way copyright is used to prevent circulation of materials such as movies, books, programs etc.
If I want a copy of The Game of Thrones and they will not sell it to me then 'piracy' is not (in my opinion) an unethical option. I was talking commercial copyright not personal copyright. Once someone has decided to commercially share they should not be permitted to 'select' an audience or even a specific distribution channel.
Take the iTunes stores as an example; I wish to purchase some products that are available in the US store but not in the Australian one. Another example; You Tube videos that 'have not been made available in your country'. Of course this is seldom a problem to people in the US.
Is there not mandatory insurance in the USA? If not, why not? If so, then the driver has virtually infinitely deep pockets. Which is why most places make at least injury insurance mandatory.
This will not really work well with patents. But suing someone who has copyrighted something and then not made it generally available might work better. It is clearer.
No. Logic fail. Your observation only tells you about one instance of an often occurring event. For your logic to work you would have to capture every event.
Do you not see you are doing exactly the same thing? That your post describes yourself?
There is no doubt at this time that the EM Drive has anomalous effects. We have repeatability. I can find no experimental confirmations of failure. At least two groups are building them into satellites for even further confirmations. Day by day confirmations increase.
Do I hear any experimental cries of "it doesn't work"? No. Only people saying it cannot work. That is a bit bloody religious not the other way around.
The usual reason given is that it violates the conservation of momentum. Yet there are theories that explain its function as moving because of conservation of momentum. (Check out MiHsC)
There is a good and solid GR reason why the EM Drive works. Unruh radiation. But, you know, so what?
You may not think so but examining anomalies is vital to science. Penicillin being a classic example.
I do not think that MiHsC has been disproven. More and more of is predictions are being shown to be observationally correct.
I think you might find it interesting to read Mike McCulloch's blog "Physics from the Edge". It is worth reading in its entirety in my not-so-humble opinion.
I like your comment but technically it is incorrect. Things are becoming negative-sum games. We as a whole can live with zero-sum games although obviously positive-sum games are preferred.
It is negative-sum games that are slams and burn.
We have solid evidence for the "EM" drive. We even have a solid theory that makes testable predictions. MiHsC. Your comment represents abuse not scientific views.
Do you actually believe that, or are you malicious in your lies? You have no evidence that apple is doing anything nasty. I doubt that it is. If what you say is true then apple has repeatedly and criminally told courts lies. Courts do not like this and put people in jail for it. Have a little common sense.
Even if it were true your alternative would be sending that information and more to China.
First non-stupid comment on the thread. This is a disgruntled ex-cop trying to damage apple. Look at all the stupid androidistas leaping to pick up his lies.
Slashdot Mirror
You are aware that any play by Shakespeare that has a woman in the cast would not truly be Shakespeare? Shakespeare's plays were always played by an all male cast. He may not have had an issue.
Besides there have been trans people everywhere throughout history. It is only in a few barbaric cultures where it has ever been a major issue
Machines and custom chips are expensive. I can see that money spent. But she still has the machines.
Yes, but! Americans clearly do not understand the terms when outsiders read their dicussions. Please do not lol at this because to almost everyone outside of America, Hilary is extremely right wing. An authoritarian and a war monger.
The only thing to disagree with in the statement made "Considering that Hillary Clinton is extremely hard right, more right wing (but less authoritarian) than Trump," is the "less authoritarian".
There are no democracies, no communisms that I am aware of although many claim one of those. What is important for a country is its constitution and respect for it, rather than the actual executives and their methodologies.
It was an academic position
I did and they were stolen from my locked desk draw. Stupid. I should have kept them at home.
Again, an attack presented as an argument. Your attempt at denigration has failed. Why are you persisting? Why not just apologise and move forward?
You understand what a straw man is, don't you? I will give you a clue. When you use such a straw man every one knows its a worthless post. A worthless argument.
Maybe you need to do some reading and learning.
Dp not get ideas of competency. You have no idea how to argue in a non-hostile fashion. I am not interested in pointing out to you which sentence. You saw it, I saw it, everyone saw it. You attempt at 'recovery' has failed. Unless you have something to actually say, then it is not possible for us to communicate. I will not abet your self aggrandisment.
That was the sort of response I wanted. It convinced me well enough. Clearly stated and well thought out. Thank you again.
You are really good at debate. But to me 'debate' is not the point. The point of a debate is to win regardless or veracity, accuracy or anything really. Debate is a game and pointless except for the fact that it currently drives almost everyones opinion.
Both of us know that ISIS (Daesh please, it is more insulting) would not give a damn about copyright or even paying you and would just take it anyway. So your point was moot before you even started typing. A good debating technique but of zero societal value. Why did it make it to paper? The reason is clear from the rest of the paragraph. There you attempt character assassination, to what point? Your entire paragraph is semantically null i.e. worthless. In fact so is the rest of the post.
If you had nothing but self adulation and denigrating of others to say why did you even post? I mean it is not as if you have shown anything to be self adulating about.
Not such a subtle troll really
The only thing of value is the last paragraph but even then you continue with unnecessary aggression and false statements about your perceived 'oponent'. Saying 'law should' is not proposing a law. It is proposing that some principles should be considered in formulation law. Or have you decided that law is unnecessary? (Sorry, I should not imitate your style).
We are a bit different. We have a semi socialised medical system in the first place. But it spreads wider than that. If you are injured in a car accident your medical needs will be covered. The car must be registered and there is a mandatory (injury) insurance component in that. But that just determines where the bill will go. The the injured will all be covered because necessary medical treatment is always covered here (social medicine). So even if the car was not registered and you were racing it in a paddock you are still not going to get a bill from the hospital. At least not an unaffordable one.
Now I agree there are property and pain and suffering issues that may go to courts, criminal and civil but mostly the civil cases are smaller than those in the US and more concerned with accommodating an injured victim than mollifying them.
I do not think that criminal charges are enough sometimes though. That facetiming driver should get a thirty year sentence with a minimum of twenty five to be served in hard labor. Here they would be out in a few years.
The idiot caused the accident. Idiots do. We would not need road laws (or many, if any, other laws) but for idiots. But I know no one not even excusing myself who is not an idiot at times. So we have rules and the less idiotic obey them - mostly. Probably proportional to idiocy
But we are talking about social responsibility here. Something that is in some measure, already required of a company (or a person).
Let us look at a slightly different software situation. Say I write and sell a program, some software. After a while my product is discovered to have an easily fixable but disastrous bug. A fix and redistribution (or at least inform and make available) should be mandatory behaviour on my part and doing this should not produce a profit. But provided I word the licence correctly I am not responsible for the disaster or damages pertaining to such. I had not anticipated it and it was not negligence to fail in that anticipation.
But if I knew the bug was there before I sold the software then I would be liable for the disaster and damages because I knew it could occur. This is exactly the knowledge that Apple demonstrated it had when it applied for the patent.
Wether or not Apple has any liability depends on what that patent actually describes and wether it was possible to implement it. If Apple did not want to lose sales because people did not like it (like they did not like seat belts) then Apple are possibly in the poop.
So, please, why is it 'bad law'?
I do not disagree. I was thinking of the way copyright is used to prevent circulation of materials such as movies, books, programs etc.
If I want a copy of The Game of Thrones and they will not sell it to me then 'piracy' is not (in my opinion) an unethical option. I was talking commercial copyright not personal copyright. Once someone has decided to commercially share they should not be permitted to 'select' an audience or even a specific distribution channel.
Take the iTunes stores as an example; I wish to purchase some products that are available in the US store but not in the Australian one. Another example; You Tube videos that 'have not been made available in your country'. Of course this is seldom a problem to people in the US.
Just a question. Why is it bad law?
Is there not mandatory insurance in the USA? If not, why not? If so, then the driver has virtually infinitely deep pockets. Which is why most places make at least injury insurance mandatory.
This will not really work well with patents. But suing someone who has copyrighted something and then not made it generally available might work better. It is clearer.
No. Logic fail. Your observation only tells you about one instance of an often occurring event. For your logic to work you would have to capture every event.
Do you not see you are doing exactly the same thing? That your post describes yourself? There is no doubt at this time that the EM Drive has anomalous effects. We have repeatability. I can find no experimental confirmations of failure. At least two groups are building them into satellites for even further confirmations. Day by day confirmations increase. Do I hear any experimental cries of "it doesn't work"? No. Only people saying it cannot work. That is a bit bloody religious not the other way around. The usual reason given is that it violates the conservation of momentum. Yet there are theories that explain its function as moving because of conservation of momentum. (Check out MiHsC) There is a good and solid GR reason why the EM Drive works. Unruh radiation. But, you know, so what? You may not think so but examining anomalies is vital to science. Penicillin being a classic example.
I do not think that MiHsC has been disproven. More and more of is predictions are being shown to be observationally correct. I think you might find it interesting to read Mike McCulloch's blog "Physics from the Edge". It is worth reading in its entirety in my not-so-humble opinion.
I like your comment but technically it is incorrect. Things are becoming negative-sum games. We as a whole can live with zero-sum games although obviously positive-sum games are preferred. It is negative-sum games that are slams and burn.
So, any site that handles email without a "postmaster" or which has a "do-not-reply" address should be booted off the Internet?
We have solid evidence for the "EM" drive. We even have a solid theory that makes testable predictions. MiHsC. Your comment represents abuse not scientific views.
Just like androids read the source code? Enough do that the bulk are protected. Same as it ever was.
Do you actually believe that, or are you malicious in your lies? You have no evidence that apple is doing anything nasty. I doubt that it is. If what you say is true then apple has repeatedly and criminally told courts lies. Courts do not like this and put people in jail for it. Have a little common sense. Even if it were true your alternative would be sending that information and more to China.
First non-stupid comment on the thread. This is a disgruntled ex-cop trying to damage apple. Look at all the stupid androidistas leaping to pick up his lies.