A poorly written anything is subject to litigation. The existence of shades of gray does not mean that routine challenges to arbitration clauses are a thing. You aren't likely to get into court to make your argument if there is an arbitration clause that purports to forbid it.
It was a thing, but the SCOTUS rejected it completely. There is no gray area; arbitration agreements that say they are binding, are binding.
If contract language is unclear, and you challenge it, and after having won that challenge there is not an arbitration clause, then there simply would not be an arbitration clause. If there is one, you can't challenge it.
You're wrong because you don't even have the tense right; you gave yourself no chance to even participate in the conversation. You're just telling me I'm wrong, but you don't know what about.
I'm telling you you're wrong because I know what's involved in the cleaning
BZZZZZZT, you're not even on the right topic yet, and you're arguing the future tense based on the past.
There is nothing possible for you to say that will make experience cleaning toilets into knowledge about what robots will be able to do in the future. Complete fail.
You shouldn't be talking about lawsuits, because you aren't even an armchair lawyer. Heck, you don't even read the basic SCOTUS news. If you did, you'd know that there was an important ruling recently, and challenging arbitration clauses is no longer a thing.
Just assume I know what the space race was. I wasn't born yesterday, unlike you. (check your user id kiddo)
You can't imagine that people's opinions are their opinions. You have to imagine that if I only knew what you knew, I'd just change my mind. Well, maybe that oversteps what you can know, eh?
Instead of talking about apps, which is all you, you could simply continue parsing my comments until they make sense. If it sounds like something that makes no sense, you simply did not yet apply the literal word meanings for which the statements are reasonable. That is all you. If you have questions, ask reasoned questions. If you don't ask questions, and don't understand... no need to project stuff about apps.
Right, that is because you took part of what I said, added on something totally absurd that is in the opposite direction than my comments were going, and found that the thing I said, plus the thing I didn't say that you added, don't make any sense together.
That should have told you not to add in crap about what I assume is a mobile game.
If you haven't yet comprehended my point, it might be premature to try to expand it.;)
Right, you're not imagining the future, so your comments have no value at all.
In the phrase, "robots will replace," it is the future being discussed.
All futures are fictional, because they haven't happened.
You're wrong because you don't even have the tense right; you gave yourself no chance to even participate in the conversation. You're just telling me I'm wrong, but you don't know what about.
Nobody said, "this conversation is relevant for people who don't understand and just want to clean less toilets." For that, you can just listen to what you're told, and know that in the future, nobody is likely to pay you for cleaning toilets. Your problem will be solved, you'll have less work in the future! Celebrate, or not, I don't care. I will say, you give an excellent counter-point to the claim that robot workers will be less pleasant to have to deal with.;)
Nope, travel doesn't take the flavor out of a tomato.
You can grow the same strains in the garden if you want to test if there is a flavor difference, or if just picking early has the same effect.
You're speculating, and you're wrong. If you think you can buy an equal tomato at the supermarket, it tells me you don't know. You haven't done the comparison.
It isn't a matter of hardware support, it is a matter of running things in userspace that can be easily used to DoS the system. It isn't the microkernel that makes it a problem, it is the service architecture with the services running in userspace. The kernel doesn't have the authority to manage anything. You could have the same microkernel, but with a central authority that can manage the services and the problems go away.
Or you can make less capabilities available to userspace while still running in userspace, but not while maintaining POSIX features.
I just spent a bunch of time in the technical details of the Hurd, and this is pretty funny.
They acknowledge if they had simply chosen an existing kernel (that they almost used) it would have turned out better than it did writing their own.
Also... OSX. It made it farther than Hurd.;)
Hurd isn't intended to ever be "ready for production" so it is silly to measure the time in that way. It was worked on for a few years as a serious project, and it has been continued as a research project. It has known architectural problems that mean that it can't ever be "secure" from the user perspective; it will always be really susceptible to DoS attacks.
What really hurt Hurd was the desire for full POSIX compatibility combined with aggressive use of a service model. The combination of features just don't add up to something that can be implemented thinly enough for an OS kernel. So the relevant thing you didn't say, that was sitting next to what you did say, has to do with Redox going for only partial POSIX compatibility.
That your prefer an alternative is irrelevant. Their goal is to be able to run standard linux apps. So you can't hide behind "I like a different flavor," no it really needs to be able to run these things. Apache is a given. That is non-negotiable.
It seems highly more probable that they're interested in receiving money from people who have more of it, not people with less. The poor already glue themselves to facebook and provide advertising revenue... and that is all they can provide.
The rich don't have nearly the same facebook uptake. They're more likely to hire somebody to do it for them then actually submit themselves to it directly. Maybe that is what the droid meant; pushing beyond the current limits of consumer demographics!
Going to the moon didn't press any limits. Sending humans to orbit did. But the moon part was a fancy vicarious vacation for the masses, a feat of pure engineering.
The Wright Brothers pressed more limits with their flights than we did going to moon. Going to the moon was done carefully, with a lot of money, and a boatload of engineers calculating all the limits before taking actions to prevent going beyond any of them.
I'd say Gandhi pressed the limits more than the moon shot. They stood up and tested the limits, found many of them.
Not sure why you would link a site with "meme" in the name as support for your claim that writing apps is seen as "pressing the limits."
I'll make a medium-term prediction, though: the limits of humanity's ability to live on the ocean will be tested and pushed back as the sea level rises over the next few decades.
Waving you hands and spewing derp isn't going to cause me to trust somebody less, just because you implied something negative.
Make a real point. Use ideas. Support your conclusions with stated reasons that make sense. That is all normal stuff. Democrats can do all that.
Republicans knew how to do it too, under President Reagan, and still under President Clinton. It is only more recently that they've gone insane and become unable to govern on a team of various Americans.
You may have run way to the right, but the center didn't move, and the center still expects compromise.
No, you've never even been through the door of a restaurant designed to be run by robots.
You cleaned a toilet, that did not teach you anything about robotics. You don't even know what you know and what you don't know.
Right, the "power of ignorance." You've never seen it. You don't know. An engineer is telling you the problem is not hard for existing robots, and you're arguing it is too hard for imaginary robots from the future. Magical power of ignorance indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
A poorly written anything is subject to litigation. The existence of shades of gray does not mean that routine challenges to arbitration clauses are a thing. You aren't likely to get into court to make your argument if there is an arbitration clause that purports to forbid it.
It was a thing, but the SCOTUS rejected it completely. There is no gray area; arbitration agreements that say they are binding, are binding.
If contract language is unclear, and you challenge it, and after having won that challenge there is not an arbitration clause, then there simply would not be an arbitration clause. If there is one, you can't challenge it.
The question is, will they be able to drop it, or not? Apple is facing over a dozen of these cases right now.
You're wrong because you don't even have the tense right; you gave yourself no chance to even participate in the conversation. You're just telling me I'm wrong, but you don't know what about.
I'm telling you you're wrong because I know what's involved in the cleaning
BZZZZZZT, you're not even on the right topic yet, and you're arguing the future tense based on the past.
There is nothing possible for you to say that will make experience cleaning toilets into knowledge about what robots will be able to do in the future. Complete fail.
That is called "the exception that proves the rule."
It doesn't defend your false claim, it just makes it look silly. Is that what you meant when you said it? No, obviously not. Fail.
Because their pants are down, and they're hoping nobody looks.
There is a giant gaping security hole that hasn't been made public, that's about 99% of the possible reasons. ;)
The other 1% are conspiracy theories.
Don't worry, you're probably just a secret beta tester for 11.
You shouldn't be talking about lawsuits, because you aren't even an armchair lawyer. Heck, you don't even read the basic SCOTUS news. If you did, you'd know that there was an important ruling recently, and challenging arbitration clauses is no longer a thing.
What's crippled
Apparently the label has insufficient value for that person. ;)
Derpy derp, derp derp derp?
I presume that is some guy you like to bully, try it my face bullyboy.
Just assume I know what the space race was. I wasn't born yesterday, unlike you. (check your user id kiddo)
You can't imagine that people's opinions are their opinions. You have to imagine that if I only knew what you knew, I'd just change my mind. Well, maybe that oversteps what you can know, eh?
Instead of talking about apps, which is all you, you could simply continue parsing my comments until they make sense. If it sounds like something that makes no sense, you simply did not yet apply the literal word meanings for which the statements are reasonable. That is all you. If you have questions, ask reasoned questions. If you don't ask questions, and don't understand... no need to project stuff about apps.
Right, that is because you took part of what I said, added on something totally absurd that is in the opposite direction than my comments were going, and found that the thing I said, plus the thing I didn't say that you added, don't make any sense together.
That should have told you not to add in crap about what I assume is a mobile game.
If you haven't yet comprehended my point, it might be premature to try to expand it. ;)
Right, you're not imagining the future, so your comments have no value at all.
In the phrase, "robots will replace," it is the future being discussed.
All futures are fictional, because they haven't happened.
You're wrong because you don't even have the tense right; you gave yourself no chance to even participate in the conversation. You're just telling me I'm wrong, but you don't know what about.
Nobody said, "this conversation is relevant for people who don't understand and just want to clean less toilets." For that, you can just listen to what you're told, and know that in the future, nobody is likely to pay you for cleaning toilets. Your problem will be solved, you'll have less work in the future! Celebrate, or not, I don't care. I will say, you give an excellent counter-point to the claim that robot workers will be less pleasant to have to deal with. ;)
Nope, travel doesn't take the flavor out of a tomato.
You can grow the same strains in the garden if you want to test if there is a flavor difference, or if just picking early has the same effect.
You're speculating, and you're wrong. If you think you can buy an equal tomato at the supermarket, it tells me you don't know. You haven't done the comparison.
It isn't a matter of hardware support, it is a matter of running things in userspace that can be easily used to DoS the system. It isn't the microkernel that makes it a problem, it is the service architecture with the services running in userspace. The kernel doesn't have the authority to manage anything. You could have the same microkernel, but with a central authority that can manage the services and the problems go away.
Or you can make less capabilities available to userspace while still running in userspace, but not while maintaining POSIX features.
I just spent a bunch of time in the technical details of the Hurd, and this is pretty funny.
They acknowledge if they had simply chosen an existing kernel (that they almost used) it would have turned out better than it did writing their own.
Also... OSX. It made it farther than Hurd. ;)
Hurd isn't intended to ever be "ready for production" so it is silly to measure the time in that way. It was worked on for a few years as a serious project, and it has been continued as a research project. It has known architectural problems that mean that it can't ever be "secure" from the user perspective; it will always be really susceptible to DoS attacks.
What really hurt Hurd was the desire for full POSIX compatibility combined with aggressive use of a service model. The combination of features just don't add up to something that can be implemented thinly enough for an OS kernel. So the relevant thing you didn't say, that was sitting next to what you did say, has to do with Redox going for only partial POSIX compatibility.
In the real world, most people have weekends. Clue in, you can have a weekend too if you're any good.
Another flavor of the month OS
This has a long way to go for that.
Check back when he gets to beta.
"slagging on C" is a regression, too. It is proven derpy many times over, whenever the replacement is also weighed. ;)
I'm skeptical too. I think most of the software problems and language problems have been solved.
What remains unsolved, apparently, is the question, "what features should software have?"
And there is no shortage of alternating attempts; more, less, more, less, more, less.
That your prefer an alternative is irrelevant. Their goal is to be able to run standard linux apps. So you can't hide behind "I like a different flavor," no it really needs to be able to run these things. Apache is a given. That is non-negotiable.
It seems highly more probable that they're interested in receiving money from people who have more of it, not people with less. The poor already glue themselves to facebook and provide advertising revenue... and that is all they can provide.
The rich don't have nearly the same facebook uptake. They're more likely to hire somebody to do it for them then actually submit themselves to it directly. Maybe that is what the droid meant; pushing beyond the current limits of consumer demographics!
Going to the moon didn't press any limits. Sending humans to orbit did. But the moon part was a fancy vicarious vacation for the masses, a feat of pure engineering.
The Wright Brothers pressed more limits with their flights than we did going to moon. Going to the moon was done carefully, with a lot of money, and a boatload of engineers calculating all the limits before taking actions to prevent going beyond any of them.
I'd say Gandhi pressed the limits more than the moon shot. They stood up and tested the limits, found many of them.
Not sure why you would link a site with "meme" in the name as support for your claim that writing apps is seen as "pressing the limits."
I'll make a medium-term prediction, though: the limits of humanity's ability to live on the ocean will be tested and pushed back as the sea level rises over the next few decades.
Also known as "professional experience," but maybe you have a hard time dealing with word meanings?
"He says something different than what I believe" doesn't imply naivety. It only implies we're different people.
Make a point next time, beyond the raw pejorative.
Waving you hands and spewing derp isn't going to cause me to trust somebody less, just because you implied something negative.
Make a real point. Use ideas. Support your conclusions with stated reasons that make sense. That is all normal stuff. Democrats can do all that.
Republicans knew how to do it too, under President Reagan, and still under President Clinton. It is only more recently that they've gone insane and become unable to govern on a team of various Americans.
You may have run way to the right, but the center didn't move, and the center still expects compromise .
No, you've never even been through the door of a restaurant designed to be run by robots.
You cleaned a toilet, that did not teach you anything about robotics. You don't even know what you know and what you don't know.
Right, the "power of ignorance." You've never seen it. You don't know. An engineer is telling you the problem is not hard for existing robots, and you're arguing it is too hard for imaginary robots from the future. Magical power of ignorance indeed.