Some people assume that is true, but cops work a lot of hours and have trouble maintaining a social life... if he owns the same model doll and recognizes her, he won't be amused. At all.
If you do have four children it might limit your choices in what cat to buy, though.
With that many squirts, the chance of at least one with pet allergies is pretty high, so you're right... you'll likely be restricted to ugly hairless monstrosities.
Average is somewhat less than 4, and not surprisingly, so is the typical spacial consideration.
Jewish rights were legally acknowledged in England in 1215 in the Magna Carta.
It is funny that you don't know it, but anywhere you had Lords you had to have Jews because the Lords were all Christians, and forbidden to collect interest on loans. Guess what, rich people don't loan out their money without interest! So it was a basic part of the governance of nations to insure that there were enough Jews in each area to keep the economy going. You can find times where some idiot tried to cause them problems, but you'll always find a backlash restoring their rights. For important historical reasons, as it turns out.
That's the thing about trademarks, they only cover the exact thing where it would be confusing, they don't cover all words that have any overlap.
In this case, what he sold was apparently "McAfee Associates" and I'd assume a trademark of "McAfee."
It is very unlikely that anybody would confuse John McAfee Blah Blah with McAfee Associates, considering McAfee Associates doesn't exist! And the bare word "McAfee" does not prevent people named McAfee from using their name. Though if they're in the same industry, it would force them to use more of their name, since that trademark got the bare word first.
Basically nobody serious thinks that selling a company that contains your name in the name of the company prevents you from ever using your name again in business. When the owners of that trademark bought the mark, they surely knew that there still existed a guy a named John McAfee, who sometimes does things to make money.
It was pretty awesome back when he was in charge. Before the internet was even public, they had an FTP server with the login "ftp" and the password "ftp123" and any customer could download new binaries. Well, or even a non-customer, actually.;) And the product was good. It was early in the arms race, and his product did a good job at detecting known threats, which was the purpose. Viruses were mostly being transmitted in floppy disks back then.
The crappiness was entirely associated with the brand at a later time, after he wasn't working there anymore. He was only there the first 5 years.
He has every right to use his own name in trade, they were fools to threaten him. He's going to court to prove them wrong, they'll have to admit they were wrong in advance to avoid spending the money on it. And it is a slam dunk for him. He won't get any money or anything, but he'll win. A feather for his cap!
That is where they have a chance to make some money.
I didn't say, "oh I am a magic wizard with a way for musicians to make money online," instead I expressed the opinion that they are foolish to restrict the promotional value of online interest in them by using proprietary platforms unless those platforms are actually making them money. If it isn't paying, then they should be giving digital media away, to promote their concerts.
Musicians who make a lot of money, make it at their concert. Except for KISS, who make it through merchandising. Why does Madonna still tour, and still do all that sexy dancing night after night? Why does she work so hard? Why doesn't she just make more albums? Because she gets pennies from an album sale, but people pay $500+ for a ticket to see her, and she gets most of that money.
A musician who cares about selling records, that's what I call a really nice and selfless person who lives to enrich their record label.
Wow, that's derpy as fuck. The President was acquitted, and voluntarily gave up his law license to avoid having to deal with the nonsense, because he was obviously never going to be a practicing lawyer as an ex-President. He didn't need it, why create the circus defending it?
It is just incredibly moronic, My Joe Average Low Information, to try to spin that failed attempt to attack President Clinton over a blow-job as some sort of victory where he was found guilty.
No, you did not demonstrate any understanding of complicated words like "is."
Searching, mapping, messaging, billing, and presumably in-app advertising.
Which of those is not "the things [they're] best at?"
PS: the moment a better search engine is released... nobody will even know about it, or be interested in trying The Next Altavista-Killer. There are already other search engines that half of slashdot will assert are better, and nobody who shaves their neck cares.
They won't have Uber's revenue, but they'll make money on it. Just like craigslist manages to make a little money on ride-sharing.
If all they make is the ad money they get from the app... that's what they do. They earn ad money. It might be enough for them to be happy to compete.
Especially when they have low overhead by not having it be a major commercial service; if they're literally just connecting the people and handling the billing for the gas split, then they don't need *any* local employees anywhere. It is just another web site with a native app at that point. And they already have all the mapping and routing technology that is the actual hard part.
At $0.57/mile (and no per-minute fee) how many people are really going to want to deal with having a stranger in their car?
Ones who are already going that way, are OK with literal ride-sharing.
Think of it this way... "how many people are really going to..." stop for a hitchhiker? 1%? Less. Much, much less. And yet, there are lots of us who do stop. People can and do get where they are going by hitchhiking. And they're not even paying fifty cents a mile. If I could just check an app before I leave town, "is anybody trying to go my way right now?" and I'd even get paid. $.57/mile offsets the gas and vehicle maintenance, that basically makes my trip free just by doing something that I might do for free anyways. Even 25 cents a mile would be a good motivator, just looking at the money, because I was already going that way.
Sharing never meant you get stuff for free, it always implied somebody involved had bought the thing. And often, those costs were shared by the parents.
If you're splitting up the transportation bill, that is absolutely sharing. Even if there is a little bit of overhead in making the connection.
You probably thought that one of the kids' parents just bought all that pizza and "shared" it, but usually the parents were also sharing the bill behind the scenes. See how that word works on both sides?
The difference between sharing and charging is all about markup, not about the existence of a bill.
Yeah, I'm totally not agreeing with the way slashdot is trying to sell this, as some sort of competition with uber.
Uber is a taxi company that differentiates by pretending to be a "ride sharing" company. The existing thing that is actually "ride sharing" is called "craigslist" and there is no special app for ride-sharing.
What Google is doing appears to be actual ride sharing. If they do it well, I might participate; after all, I already stop for many hitchhikers.
Well, it depends upon what the meaning of "is", is.
Exactly! People frothed at the mouth when President Clinton said something like that in the 90s. But it is a real problem. It seems to Average Joe that a word like "is" is very easy to understand, but then, they're also not used to communicating in forms that are capable of containing details.
Even in your phrase, "The letter of the law is the guiding principle" there is a huge amount of weight on the word "is." How heavily is the law guided? Is this a barely-inclusive is, or something stronger?
And indeed, both side do accuse the other of having kangaroo courts. Countries that put more emphasis on intent point out the absurdity of deciding real things with stronger guidance from wording than from context, and the ability of lawyers to create loopholes. Not just because the wording was actually unclear, but because it becomes less and less clear the more effort and money is put into making it seem so. With intent you know that an argument over intent is subjective, but with loopholes-asserted-by-opposing-lawyer, it is a more difficult problem for the court; they're supposed to take the wording objectively. Is the proposed loophole something objective that they must follow, or is it a load of shit and the words are actually more clear than the lawyer gave them credit for? Maybe the meaning of the words was clear, but the phrasing was poor. That is a major part of US legal decisions; the court deciding which understanding of the possibly-ambiguous words was actually intended by the legislature. The legislature often can't even agree if they agree or disagree with the courts about their own intent, but they do usually at least agree about what words they enacted.
If just one side had the "kangaroo courts" argument, I don't think it would be an ongoing point of contention between otherwise-similar civic principles.
Yeah, but a random layperson who said that might also say, "gosh, I heard that taxes are bad for jobs, don't they create a lot of jobs?" They might also say, "of course the powerful find ways to avoid paying." They might also say, "money is power."
And laypeople who believe taxes are for paying... that might be the 2% of us that are armchair policy wonks with a hyper-sensitive sense of fairness. I think the average layperson just doesn't see themselves as being powerful enough to avoid taxes, rather than having some sort of strong sense of civic duty.
I don't doubt that you want more of something, I just doubt that it is news, and that you would know the difference.
You'd have to actually read the story to find out what percent said they want more. Just from 33% want less, you don't know how many want more. There is no reason to believe that you could simply subtract 33 from 100 to get that number.
If you read the article, (I don't recommend it, it isn't news and isn't even interesting) you'll find a substantially different number than you supposed. And the one majority you're a part of here is the same one as usual; the majority of people who didn't understand most of it anyways, but they purported to and formed an opinion.
Actually, their algorithm doesn't even have to be wrong to be junk. If they successfully posted stuff that I would want to click on, it would still be noise; it would still not be what I was there to read at the time, and if I found myself clicking on it, it would just make me less likely to go there in the first place.
Pulling in activity that otherwise would have gone to an organic search is nice and all, but it also dilutes their core purpose of connecting humans to other humans.
Right, "news" is their marketing-speak dialect for "content pushed by publishers," aka spam or "promoted content."
51% of 500-odd people didn't care how much there is. I'm going to guess that not even 15% understood the terminology used; probably over 50% thought they were talking about "important current events" and were neutral on it, because they see value in "news" even though they don't actually read it themselves.
People keep trying to push that, forgetting that people who agreed already switched to C++, or at least are using GCC extensions.
While I don't doubt that there are people who avoided C99 who will love C11, most of the people using C are using C99 and won't be willing to consider adopting whatever was added in `11 until 2020 or later.
I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of people still using C do not want language innovation, they want feature stability.
Slashdot Mirror
Some people assume that is true, but cops work a lot of hours and have trouble maintaining a social life... if he owns the same model doll and recognizes her, he won't be amused. At all.
If you do have four children it might limit your choices in what cat to buy, though.
With that many squirts, the chance of at least one with pet allergies is pretty high, so you're right... you'll likely be restricted to ugly hairless monstrosities.
Average is somewhat less than 4, and not surprisingly, so is the typical spacial consideration.
You make the same strange slander as the summary. I doubt their passports were "lifted," they were much more likely confiscated.
"No, that wasn't it. Nope, that wasn't it either." You shouldn't have to test that.
Jewish rights were legally acknowledged in England in 1215 in the Magna Carta.
It is funny that you don't know it, but anywhere you had Lords you had to have Jews because the Lords were all Christians, and forbidden to collect interest on loans. Guess what, rich people don't loan out their money without interest! So it was a basic part of the governance of nations to insure that there were enough Jews in each area to keep the economy going. You can find times where some idiot tried to cause them problems, but you'll always find a backlash restoring their rights. For important historical reasons, as it turns out.
That's the thing about trademarks, they only cover the exact thing where it would be confusing, they don't cover all words that have any overlap.
In this case, what he sold was apparently "McAfee Associates" and I'd assume a trademark of "McAfee."
It is very unlikely that anybody would confuse John McAfee Blah Blah with McAfee Associates, considering McAfee Associates doesn't exist! And the bare word "McAfee" does not prevent people named McAfee from using their name. Though if they're in the same industry, it would force them to use more of their name, since that trademark got the bare word first.
Basically nobody serious thinks that selling a company that contains your name in the name of the company prevents you from ever using your name again in business. When the owners of that trademark bought the mark, they surely knew that there still existed a guy a named John McAfee, who sometimes does things to make money.
It was pretty awesome back when he was in charge. Before the internet was even public, they had an FTP server with the login "ftp" and the password "ftp123" and any customer could download new binaries. Well, or even a non-customer, actually. ;) And the product was good. It was early in the arms race, and his product did a good job at detecting known threats, which was the purpose. Viruses were mostly being transmitted in floppy disks back then.
The crappiness was entirely associated with the brand at a later time, after he wasn't working there anymore. He was only there the first 5 years.
He has every right to use his own name in trade, they were fools to threaten him. He's going to court to prove them wrong, they'll have to admit they were wrong in advance to avoid spending the money on it. And it is a slam dunk for him. He won't get any money or anything, but he'll win. A feather for his cap!
Their swag booth at the concert.
That is where they have a chance to make some money.
I didn't say, "oh I am a magic wizard with a way for musicians to make money online," instead I expressed the opinion that they are foolish to restrict the promotional value of online interest in them by using proprietary platforms unless those platforms are actually making them money. If it isn't paying, then they should be giving digital media away, to promote their concerts.
Musicians who make a lot of money, make it at their concert. Except for KISS, who make it through merchandising. Why does Madonna still tour, and still do all that sexy dancing night after night? Why does she work so hard? Why doesn't she just make more albums? Because she gets pennies from an album sale, but people pay $500+ for a ticket to see her, and she gets most of that money.
A musician who cares about selling records, that's what I call a really nice and selfless person who lives to enrich their record label.
Wow, that's derpy as fuck. The President was acquitted, and voluntarily gave up his law license to avoid having to deal with the nonsense, because he was obviously never going to be a practicing lawyer as an ex-President. He didn't need it, why create the circus defending it?
It is just incredibly moronic, My Joe Average Low Information, to try to spin that failed attempt to attack President Clinton over a blow-job as some sort of victory where he was found guilty.
No, you did not demonstrate any understanding of complicated words like "is."
It already exists as a useful tool, why does it even need to have a "goal?"
The main technologies used here are:
Searching, mapping, messaging, billing, and presumably in-app advertising.
Which of those is not "the things [they're] best at?"
PS: the moment a better search engine is released... nobody will even know about it, or be interested in trying The Next Altavista-Killer. There are already other search engines that half of slashdot will assert are better, and nobody who shaves their neck cares.
They won't have Uber's revenue, but they'll make money on it. Just like craigslist manages to make a little money on ride-sharing.
If all they make is the ad money they get from the app... that's what they do. They earn ad money. It might be enough for them to be happy to compete.
Especially when they have low overhead by not having it be a major commercial service; if they're literally just connecting the people and handling the billing for the gas split, then they don't need *any* local employees anywhere. It is just another web site with a native app at that point. And they already have all the mapping and routing technology that is the actual hard part.
At $0.57/mile (and no per-minute fee) how many people are really going to want to deal with having a stranger in their car?
Ones who are already going that way, are OK with literal ride-sharing.
Think of it this way... "how many people are really going to..." stop for a hitchhiker? 1%? Less. Much, much less. And yet, there are lots of us who do stop. People can and do get where they are going by hitchhiking. And they're not even paying fifty cents a mile. If I could just check an app before I leave town, "is anybody trying to go my way right now?" and I'd even get paid. $.57/mile offsets the gas and vehicle maintenance, that basically makes my trip free just by doing something that I might do for free anyways. Even 25 cents a mile would be a good motivator, just looking at the money, because I was already going that way.
Sharing never meant you get stuff for free, it always implied somebody involved had bought the thing. And often, those costs were shared by the parents.
If you're splitting up the transportation bill, that is absolutely sharing. Even if there is a little bit of overhead in making the connection.
You probably thought that one of the kids' parents just bought all that pizza and "shared" it, but usually the parents were also sharing the bill behind the scenes. See how that word works on both sides?
The difference between sharing and charging is all about markup, not about the existence of a bill.
Yeah, I'm totally not agreeing with the way slashdot is trying to sell this, as some sort of competition with uber.
Uber is a taxi company that differentiates by pretending to be a "ride sharing" company. The existing thing that is actually "ride sharing" is called "craigslist" and there is no special app for ride-sharing.
What Google is doing appears to be actual ride sharing. If they do it well, I might participate; after all, I already stop for many hitchhikers.
Well, it depends upon what the meaning of "is", is.
Exactly! People frothed at the mouth when President Clinton said something like that in the 90s. But it is a real problem. It seems to Average Joe that a word like "is" is very easy to understand, but then, they're also not used to communicating in forms that are capable of containing details.
Even in your phrase, "The letter of the law is the guiding principle" there is a huge amount of weight on the word "is." How heavily is the law guided? Is this a barely-inclusive is, or something stronger?
And indeed, both side do accuse the other of having kangaroo courts. Countries that put more emphasis on intent point out the absurdity of deciding real things with stronger guidance from wording than from context, and the ability of lawyers to create loopholes. Not just because the wording was actually unclear, but because it becomes less and less clear the more effort and money is put into making it seem so. With intent you know that an argument over intent is subjective, but with loopholes-asserted-by-opposing-lawyer, it is a more difficult problem for the court; they're supposed to take the wording objectively. Is the proposed loophole something objective that they must follow, or is it a load of shit and the words are actually more clear than the lawyer gave them credit for? Maybe the meaning of the words was clear, but the phrasing was poor. That is a major part of US legal decisions; the court deciding which understanding of the possibly-ambiguous words was actually intended by the legislature. The legislature often can't even agree if they agree or disagree with the courts about their own intent, but they do usually at least agree about what words they enacted.
If just one side had the "kangaroo courts" argument, I don't think it would be an ongoing point of contention between otherwise-similar civic principles.
Yeah, but a random layperson who said that might also say, "gosh, I heard that taxes are bad for jobs, don't they create a lot of jobs?" They might also say, "of course the powerful find ways to avoid paying." They might also say, "money is power."
And laypeople who believe taxes are for paying... that might be the 2% of us that are armchair policy wonks with a hyper-sensitive sense of fairness. I think the average layperson just doesn't see themselves as being powerful enough to avoid taxes, rather than having some sort of strong sense of civic duty.
Or phrased another way, less people understood what was meant by the marketing term "news" than actually care one way or the other, whatever it was.
I don't doubt that you want more of something, I just doubt that it is news, and that you would know the difference.
You'd have to actually read the story to find out what percent said they want more. Just from 33% want less, you don't know how many want more. There is no reason to believe that you could simply subtract 33 from 100 to get that number.
If you read the article, (I don't recommend it, it isn't news and isn't even interesting) you'll find a substantially different number than you supposed. And the one majority you're a part of here is the same one as usual; the majority of people who didn't understand most of it anyways, but they purported to and formed an opinion.
Actually, their algorithm doesn't even have to be wrong to be junk. If they successfully posted stuff that I would want to click on, it would still be noise; it would still not be what I was there to read at the time, and if I found myself clicking on it, it would just make me less likely to go there in the first place.
Pulling in activity that otherwise would have gone to an organic search is nice and all, but it also dilutes their core purpose of connecting humans to other humans.
Right, "news" is their marketing-speak dialect for "content pushed by publishers," aka spam or "promoted content."
51% of 500-odd people didn't care how much there is. I'm going to guess that not even 15% understood the terminology used; probably over 50% thought they were talking about "important current events" and were neutral on it, because they see value in "news" even though they don't actually read it themselves.
... that people who have smartphones are on them all the time?
They don't. Apparently, it isn't "all" the time, only 25% of the time that you would otherwise be working.
The real problem with C is that...
People keep trying to push that, forgetting that people who agreed already switched to C++, or at least are using GCC extensions.
While I don't doubt that there are people who avoided C99 who will love C11, most of the people using C are using C99 and won't be willing to consider adopting whatever was added in `11 until 2020 or later.
I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of people still using C do not want language innovation, they want feature stability.
Exactly. We google libraries, and we don't have to say that it is the C version.
The language isn't the hard part. That the language isn't the hard part also helps create the hard part.
He co-wrote "Roycroft's 5-man chess endgame series," and various non-book things that he wrote are heavily utilized by chess programmers who use C.