alexqgb

137 ms·

511.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Why would it be asinine? Seriously, so what if they have nukes? Simply having them doesn't mean you can use them. After all, that's what the Cold War demonstrated. If you're going to use them, you have to use them in numbers
512.
by alexqgb 13y ago
At one point, yes, but the caffeine content was off the charts, presumably because of the extended soak that the method required. One large cup of that and I needed an even bigger spatula, just to scrape myself off the ceiling.
513.
by alexqgb 13y ago
What I can can see is that you're an relentlessly dishonest person with no real interest in learning more about the world, making further conversation pointless. Specifically, I've noticed that each time the error of what you&#x27
514.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Before the whole civet-poo coffee thing blew up, a friend got me a pound of the stuff. It was beyond amazing. It had a really creamy quality, without the bitter or acidic qualities. And while it was clearly coffee, it didn't taste like
515.
by alexqgb 13y ago
I have no interest in "proving" anything to anyone brainless enough enough to make sweeping assertions that categorically deny the very existence of something - without even spending the 30-40 seconds on Google needed to verify th
516.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Except they don't. They haven't been keeping up for the last 30 years of growing automation and stagnating wages. In that time the world has seen massive population growth, which exacerbates the basic problem just as the informati
517.
by alexqgb 13y ago
"this is about how incredibly naive it is to think when you're in public, no one's allowed to look at you." That is...not even remotely close to what I, or anyone else on this thread has said. This was about the malign e
518.
by alexqgb 13y ago
That was actually my point, the law hasn't responded to paparazzi in a major way because they effect so few people. Or rather, it hadn't responded until relatively recently. California has found that the swarms are so big, and beh
519.
by alexqgb 13y ago
That's very much a special case, and one that effects a microscopic portion of the population. Were that level of harassment to become part of daily life as lived by millions, the presently tentative efforts to rein them legally in wou
520.
by alexqgb 13y ago
The moral arguments against it are profound: put simply human liberty and constant mass surveillance are mutually incompatible. There is a deep and rich body of literature, philosophy, research, and direct human experience to back this up.
521.
by alexqgb 13y ago
This is really bad analysis, not least of all because it excludes the glaringly obvious option of simply accepting tighter margins of profit and lower executive-level pay. If you want an intelligent, fair-minded, and properly-researched acc
522.
by alexqgb 13y ago
He specifically said people should be "100% certain" that they can support their children until their children can support themselves. Given that this normally entails a span of ~25 years (assuming two kids through college), that
523.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Sorry dude, but you very specifically said that parents need to be "100% certain" that they can provide for their kids until their kids can provide for themselves. In America, that standard means one thing and one thing only: the
524.
by alexqgb 13y ago
You don't have to be terribly intelligent to realize that the percentage of people who can be "100% certain" that their finances will not implode at any point in a quarter-century span is vanishingly small. Seriously, think a
525.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Sorry, accidental downvote. I meant to upvote since you nailed it: I want privacy norms to be respected not because I have anything in particular to hide, but because I want people who can advance my general interests as a citizen to be abl
526.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Don't be a idiot. You should know as well as anyone that simply "being in public" actually preserves a large amount of privacy and anonymity. Consider, for, instance, what would happen if any of the countless people you pass
527.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Straw man. I said "check" not "contract" for a reason. Specifically, because it creates an obligation to pay that does not require a separate contract. Copyright law works in the same way, in that it creates an obligatio
528.
by alexqgb 13y ago
It's theft of money. You do something that incurs a debt, but instead of paying that debt you simply keep the money in you pocket - money which is, by right, no longer yours. It's like bouncing a check. Generally speaking, that&#x
529.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Exactly. And if you're honest about it, there are no "alternatives". Seriously, name one alternative to air travel that offers comparable value in terms of time and cost. You can't. Because there aren't any. Given
530.
by alexqgb 13y ago
No, the inference you're drawing does not follow from what I said. I simply pointed out that, contrary to your assertion, the onus for securing clear title to the work rests with the buyer, not the seller. Assuming that the designer is
531.
by alexqgb 13y ago
I can't be absolutly certain, of course, but given the quality of the work itself I can tell that the people who did it aren't amatures. I also know the probability an accomplished, professional designer claiming non-payment when
532.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Given the petulant tone of your response, I'll leave it to you to do your own research on the basics of copyright law. But I will note that, under the law, the contents are owned by whoever created them. If the client failed to pay for
533.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Wrong. If the client didn't pay, and clear title to the site didn't transfer, then the site is, if not owned by the designer, then jointly owned by the designer and the client. IP law 101.
534.
by alexqgb 13y ago
It's different because the stiffed party in your example does not own the store being locked and vandalized and cannot take those actions without breaking unrelated laws. That's not the case with IP for which the creator still has
535.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Actually, he does. With IP contracts the onus falls on the buyer, not the seller, who is granted full ownership of their work from the moment of creation. Making sure you have clear title to the the work of another isn't the contractor
536.
by alexqgb 13y ago
No, voters in general are not "awash in power". The vote has been heavily rigged, to the point that House Republicns, who command a majority of ~20 seats, were abor to secure this margin even as Dem candidates garnered 1.4 milli
537.
by alexqgb 13y ago
This is a place where all the windows are embedded with a very fine copper mesh to block unwanted RF (coming or going).
538.
Show HN: We Are Here - The Story of Stars & Maps(kickstarter.com)
1 points by alexqgb 13y ago|0 comments
539.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Party line votes tend to happen in relation to ideologically symbolic issues which tend not to be the issues that donors care much about. What's more likely to happen is the representatives will be permitted to vote against their party
540.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Not so. A larger percentage of donations have little to do with the individual views and predilections of representatives, and a tremendous amount to do with the committees on which they sit. Not only is there a a precisely defined hierarch

More ›