(BTW, Shatan was a god in the ancient Hebrew pantheon (perhaps equivalent to Loki). You knew that ancient Hebrew religion was really polytheistic and it was later pasted over and reinterpreted as montheistic, didn't you?)
First, minor nitpick, it's Satan, not Shatan. And actually, in Job it's always Ha-Satan, so Satan is a normal noun, not a name (the prefix ha means "the"). It's usually translated as "the adversary" or "the accuser".
Second, I've always heard of Satan being considered an angel or some other sort of divine being, but not a "real" god. Looking at the Hebrew, though, it says Satan is one of b'nei ha-elohim, which is either "sons of the gods" or "sons of God". Someone much more knowledgeable than I would have to comment on that one.
As for the polytheistic pantheon, it is a bit strange. The Torah seems to take for granted that the gods of the other nations exist, considering how often the Hebrew God does nasty things to them, but they're always considered inferior beings and not the supreme deity that should be worshiped. It's unfortunate that there was so much common knowledge that the Torah assumed everyone already knew, but that isn't quite so common anymore.
Now, for some reason he has 6 children, responsible adults know that there are a number of ways not to end up with that many children. I won't detail them all here, but suffice it to say there are ways of avoiding them that are compatible with every religion. Regardless, he has them, the average family has 2 children (can't find the exact census number what I can find says 1.8, I don't trust that, I believe it is less than the famous 2.5 number of days past). If you assume that each head in the house is truly 1:1, then he has 3x the costs, but 2.67x the income.
In my corner of the mathematical world, 8 people (2 parents and 6 children) is 4 people (2 parents and 2 children) times 2, not times 3.
The only way a free market can work in favour of the consumer is if the free market is heavily regulated, and prevented from anti-competitive behaviour, including eating your smaller peers, subsidizing parts of your business to outcompete someone who can't afford the same, or give money to lawmakers ("campaign contributions" - call it what it is: bribes) to pass laws favouring big business, often by introducing regulatory costs so others can't afford the entry ticket.
After all of that, you no longer have a free market. A truly free market would allow all of those things to happen. There's a difference between a free market, where businesses can do whatever they want to make money, and a fair market, which is what actually has the advantages usually attributed to a free market.
The problem with software patents is that if it looks the same (or even similar) it is very hard to prove that it is functionally different.
It isn't trivial, but it's not as difficult as you're making it out to be. Usually all you need is the source code and a few people with computer science degrees.
See, Microsoft very intentionally (and very successfully) created.NET to be as different as possible from everything else out there
Yup, it's definitely as different as possible from everything else out there. Well, except for this obscure little thing called Java, but that doesn't really count.
Correct me if I'm wrong, don't all claims of a patent have to be applicable for it to be valid?
You're wrong. First, I assume you meant "for it to be infringed" and not "for it to be valid". Second, each claim in a patent is legally considered an entirely separate invention, so each claim is infringed separately. You may be thinking of the elements within a claim, which must all be met in order for a claim to be infringed.
I can not lay my hand on any part of the Union Constitution which gives the Executive branch power to act like the Judicial branch.
The ITC can't act like a judicial court. All the ITC can do is block the import of specific products. An ITC ruling can't award damages or send anyone to prison (not that the ITC would have anything to do with criminal cases anyway). A judge in a federal court will take into account an ITC decision for the same parties for the same patents, so the side that wins in the ITC is more likely to win in federal court, but it's certainly not a requirement.
Isn't a second defined to be 1/60th of a minute which is 1/60th of an hour, which is 1/24th of a day? And a day is the amount of time it takes for the sun to revolve around the earth. For this reason, it won't add up at all since this change will have redefined what a second is.
- queue sound of crickets chirping -
Is there a bunch of crickets lined up waiting to make sound?
At best they're coordinating things so that the employees can focus as much on production as possible.
That's what a manager's job is: to do everything they can to let the people working for them do their jobs. Somebody has to do this stuff, and you're better off having it be someone that's good at managing so that the good engineers can focus on the technical work.
"which is expected to be the final version of Firefox as well."
What the hell is with the summaries lately?
Maybe it's been edited since you saw it, but right now it says "which is expected to be the final version of Firefox 4 as well." I agree that it's pretty poorly worded, but it should be obvious enough that it means that the release candidate will become the 4.0 release (i.e. they aren't planning another release candidate).
I completely agree that being required to prove citizenship whenever a police officer asks you to is ridiculous, but that's a separate topic. The topic here is that a judge can issue a warrant (presumably as part of an investigation, since judges generally don't issue warrants "just because") for whatever information a website has about a message that is connected to some crime. Judges have always been able to issue search warrants as part of criminal investigations, and this isn't really any different.
No, the part about: nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,.... as in not say anything, or say in anonymity.
I'm pretty sure that anything you've said can be used against you in a trial, but you can't be forced to say anything (i.e. answer questions) that would incriminate yourself. Hence, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you."
The judge forgets the US Constitutional Fifth Amendment
Exactly which part of the Fifth Amendment applies here? If you meant the Fourth Amendment, I don't think it protects you from a warrant issued by a court. In fact, I vaguely recall there being something explicit in there about warrants.
Any operating system that lets you install your own software is vulnerable to Trojans. Most Linux distributions would be less vulnerable if you can get the user to understand how to only ever install software from the official repositories, but a stupid user is going to follow the instructions on some random website to get new screen savers no matter what operating system they're using.
Me, I always refer to it as "Microsoft ess queue el server 2008" because i won't play those silly games. As for people who call it "sequel", they need to get off my (IBM-coloured) lawn, because I can remember SEQL!
I'm the exact opposite. I call it "Sequel Server" to differentiate it from real SQL databases like Postgres.
How far of a leap is it to say that application is just a longer form of app so it's also covered under trademark. No more application developers unless you want to be sued.
A huge leap. Their trademark isn't on "App" or "Application", but on "App Store", and only in that specific field.
Last I checked, gold was naturally-occurring - and therefore organic.
I don't think they're trying to say it has 0 chemical or carbon footprint for manufacture, but that all the materials it is made of are natural/organic.
I don't think they're using the "organic food" definition of organic, but the chemistry definition of organic.
If the yearly profit you can expect from a business is N, where does the valuation as 20xN come from?
Even I can answer that one. Usually you don't invest in or buy a business for only one year. If you pay 20*N for a company, all you have to do is keep the profits steady for 20 years, and you've gotten your money back. If you don't suck at business (which you and I do), you can increase their profit and make your money back in a lot less than 20 years. If you really are in it as a long-term investment, then you can keep your ownership for 30 years, and most likely have double what you originally paid.
Or you can do what appears to be fashionable these days and destroy the long-term viability of the company for a one-year profit boost, then dump it on someone else who isn't smart enough to realize that the company is about collapse.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet what happens every single time a fiscal conservative is in charge of the US doesn't demonstrate anything to you?
To be fair, though, when was the last time a fiscal conservative was in charge of the US?
(BTW, Shatan was a god in the ancient Hebrew pantheon (perhaps equivalent to Loki). You knew that ancient Hebrew religion was really polytheistic and it was later pasted over and reinterpreted as montheistic, didn't you?)
First, minor nitpick, it's Satan, not Shatan. And actually, in Job it's always Ha-Satan, so Satan is a normal noun, not a name (the prefix ha means "the"). It's usually translated as "the adversary" or "the accuser".
Second, I've always heard of Satan being considered an angel or some other sort of divine being, but not a "real" god. Looking at the Hebrew, though, it says Satan is one of b'nei ha-elohim, which is either "sons of the gods" or "sons of God". Someone much more knowledgeable than I would have to comment on that one.
As for the polytheistic pantheon, it is a bit strange. The Torah seems to take for granted that the gods of the other nations exist, considering how often the Hebrew God does nasty things to them, but they're always considered inferior beings and not the supreme deity that should be worshiped. It's unfortunate that there was so much common knowledge that the Torah assumed everyone already knew, but that isn't quite so common anymore.
Now, for some reason he has 6 children, responsible adults know that there are a number of ways not to end up with that many children. I won't detail them all here, but suffice it to say there are ways of avoiding them that are compatible with every religion. Regardless, he has them, the average family has 2 children (can't find the exact census number what I can find says 1.8, I don't trust that, I believe it is less than the famous 2.5 number of days past). If you assume that each head in the house is truly 1:1, then he has 3x the costs, but 2.67x the income.
In my corner of the mathematical world, 8 people (2 parents and 6 children) is 4 people (2 parents and 2 children) times 2, not times 3.
If we go to Mars in 50 years and get greeted by Johnny 5...
The only way a free market can work in favour of the consumer is if the free market is heavily regulated, and prevented from anti-competitive behaviour, including eating your smaller peers, subsidizing parts of your business to outcompete someone who can't afford the same, or give money to lawmakers ("campaign contributions" - call it what it is: bribes) to pass laws favouring big business, often by introducing regulatory costs so others can't afford the entry ticket.
After all of that, you no longer have a free market. A truly free market would allow all of those things to happen. There's a difference between a free market, where businesses can do whatever they want to make money, and a fair market, which is what actually has the advantages usually attributed to a free market.
The problem with software patents is that if it looks the same (or even similar) it is very hard to prove that it is functionally different.
It isn't trivial, but it's not as difficult as you're making it out to be. Usually all you need is the source code and a few people with computer science degrees.
See, Microsoft very intentionally (and very successfully) created .NET to be as different as possible from everything else out there
Yup, it's definitely as different as possible from everything else out there. Well, except for this obscure little thing called Java, but that doesn't really count.
Correct me if I'm wrong, don't all claims of a patent have to be applicable for it to be valid?
You're wrong. First, I assume you meant "for it to be infringed" and not "for it to be valid". Second, each claim in a patent is legally considered an entirely separate invention, so each claim is infringed separately. You may be thinking of the elements within a claim, which must all be met in order for a claim to be infringed.
I can not lay my hand on any part of the Union Constitution which gives the Executive branch power to act like the Judicial branch.
The ITC can't act like a judicial court. All the ITC can do is block the import of specific products. An ITC ruling can't award damages or send anyone to prison (not that the ITC would have anything to do with criminal cases anyway). A judge in a federal court will take into account an ITC decision for the same parties for the same patents, so the side that wins in the ITC is more likely to win in federal court, but it's certainly not a requirement.
We all did, but once we grow up, we have to realize that not every problem can be solved by liberal application of the Spread Gun.
Speak for yourself.
Visa and Mastercard really make their money on the fact that so many people have continuos rolling debt every month that builds interest.
Really? I had always thought it was the issuing bank that kept the interest.
Dunno, isn't it a short step from DO NOT EAT to DO NOT PUT IN REMAINING EYE?
Fixed that for you.
Maybe they weren't holding the iPhone correctly.
The correct holding method is to be standing in queue at the Returns counter.
I would have thought that the Apple-approved holding method is to be standing in the queue to purchase the next iteration.
Isn't a second defined to be 1/60th of a minute which is 1/60th of an hour, which is 1/24th of a day? And a day is the amount of time it takes for the sun to revolve around the earth. For this reason, it won't add up at all since this change will have redefined what a second is.
- queue sound of crickets chirping -
Is there a bunch of crickets lined up waiting to make sound?
At best they're coordinating things so that the employees can focus as much on production as possible.
That's what a manager's job is: to do everything they can to let the people working for them do their jobs. Somebody has to do this stuff, and you're better off having it be someone that's good at managing so that the good engineers can focus on the technical work.
"which is expected to be the final version of Firefox as well."
What the hell is with the summaries lately?
Maybe it's been edited since you saw it, but right now it says "which is expected to be the final version of Firefox 4 as well." I agree that it's pretty poorly worded, but it should be obvious enough that it means that the release candidate will become the 4.0 release (i.e. they aren't planning another release candidate).
I completely agree that being required to prove citizenship whenever a police officer asks you to is ridiculous, but that's a separate topic. The topic here is that a judge can issue a warrant (presumably as part of an investigation, since judges generally don't issue warrants "just because") for whatever information a website has about a message that is connected to some crime. Judges have always been able to issue search warrants as part of criminal investigations, and this isn't really any different.
No, the part about: nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,.... as in not say anything, or say in anonymity.
I'm pretty sure that anything you've said can be used against you in a trial, but you can't be forced to say anything (i.e. answer questions) that would incriminate yourself. Hence, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you."
The judge forgets the US Constitutional Fifth Amendment
Exactly which part of the Fifth Amendment applies here? If you meant the Fourth Amendment, I don't think it protects you from a warrant issued by a court. In fact, I vaguely recall there being something explicit in there about warrants.
Which operating system allows this?
Any operating system that lets you install your own software is vulnerable to Trojans. Most Linux distributions would be less vulnerable if you can get the user to understand how to only ever install software from the official repositories, but a stupid user is going to follow the instructions on some random website to get new screen savers no matter what operating system they're using.
Me, I always refer to it as "Microsoft ess queue el server 2008" because i won't play those silly games. As for people who call it "sequel", they need to get off my (IBM-coloured) lawn, because I can remember SEQL!
I'm the exact opposite. I call it "Sequel Server" to differentiate it from real SQL databases like Postgres.
How far of a leap is it to say that application is just a longer form of app so it's also covered under trademark. No more application developers unless you want to be sued.
A huge leap. Their trademark isn't on "App" or "Application", but on "App Store", and only in that specific field.
Last I checked, gold was naturally-occurring - and therefore organic.
I don't think they're trying to say it has 0 chemical or carbon footprint for manufacture, but that all the materials it is made of are natural/organic.
I don't think they're using the "organic food" definition of organic, but the chemistry definition of organic.
It's unoriginal and uninformative. Come up with something useful to say. you're better than this.
You must be new here.
If the yearly profit you can expect from a business is N, where does the valuation as 20xN come from?
Even I can answer that one. Usually you don't invest in or buy a business for only one year. If you pay 20*N for a company, all you have to do is keep the profits steady for 20 years, and you've gotten your money back. If you don't suck at business (which you and I do), you can increase their profit and make your money back in a lot less than 20 years. If you really are in it as a long-term investment, then you can keep your ownership for 30 years, and most likely have double what you originally paid.
Or you can do what appears to be fashionable these days and destroy the long-term viability of the company for a one-year profit boost, then dump it on someone else who isn't smart enough to realize that the company is about collapse.