yew

29 ms·

241.
by yew 13y ago
I'm afraid I'm not misunderstanding you. Though I'm not trying to change your mind now either. I'll finish by suggesting you look up the technical definition of 'belief'. I haven't been discussing religion or philosophy. Back to both sides
242.
by yew 13y ago
There are certain legal differences between 'selling a product' and 'distributing testing hardware'. It's not clear to me that classifying the Explorer Edition as the latter would hold up in court because of the method of distribution, but
243.
by yew 13y ago
And by them you mean? I haven't asserted that you're infringing on anyone in more than a general sense, by the way. Though 'nuh-uh' wouldn't be a particularly convincing response if I had. And I'm not even talking about 'everyone who do
244.
by yew 13y ago
why, yes, I went there You are, alas, making entirely unfounded assumptions about my personal beliefs. The third sentence of my previous post is the only thing I've said in this thread about that . Elsewise I'm just talking general psych
245.
by yew 13y ago
As you wish. Though I have to wonder why we're having this conversation if you don't actually want to talk with me.
246.
by yew 13y ago
It's more like "You're free to believe whatever you want, but that freedom doesn't automatically make you not a bigot". So many words for 'we won't accept it'! I'm not saying that all beliefs are equally valid. I don't even have a problem
247.
by yew 13y ago
Everyone believes that it 'isn't just a talking point'. Everyone believes that ' some things are clearly subjective, but come on, really, this clearly isn't even worth calling an idea'. The pity is, no one can agree on what 'it' is .
248.
by yew 13y ago
Do you hold them to a higher level of moral responsibility during their off time because of what they do for a living? Yes! Of course! Being an officer may be 'just a job', but in practice the hat doesn't come off. Which is the entire poi
249.
by yew 13y ago
If you assume that most post travels between points that are close to one another, putting the most specific modifier first makes sense. Most of the time you only have to think about a small part of the address to route correctly. That brea
250.
by yew 13y ago
Anyone have more information on this? I don't see a paper title or any links but it sounds interesting . . .
251.
by yew 13y ago
"Every rule of grammar you know is a fuzzy reference to a referent embedded in someone's brain." sounds better, though ;)
252.
by yew 13y ago
It's true that they were very well compensated for the work. I think it's worth keeping in mind, though, that controlling a large group of cultural natives who've integrated into your cultural leaves a lot of room open for further benefit
253.
by yew 13y ago
Don't be silly. No one ever does that in a crisis. They just spout platitudes about 'doing everything possible' and never stop to think about what that actually means . And if you point out the implications someone will quickly follow up b
254.
by yew 13y ago
Please stop pretending to speak for everyone affected by this sort of tragedy. At least wait until the chaos is over to make such sweeping judgment.
255.
by yew 14y ago
It seems like the problem is more that it can't look far enough into the future to see that grabbing lots of points now (by stacking blocks) is canceled out by losing (that is, not gaining) points later. It would be interesting to see how
256.
by yew 14y ago
Depends on what sort of parties you like.
257.
by yew 14y ago
Probably worth noting that the presentation that the author is discussing is less about 'which language is faster' and more about what sort of abstractions different types of languages encourage. The presenter explicitly takes the position
258.
by yew 14y ago
So we can expect our email to be protected after we've successfully lobbied for the establishment of a massive legal framework that protects it, then?
259.
by yew 14y ago
I wouldn't call it optimism. Both of the 'infringers' you linked to paid plenty of money for it. I can't say that article of yours makes your point nearly as well as you might like, either. I hope it doesn't represent your general attitude
260.
by yew 14y ago
Not seeing how "it would be nice to live in a world without the current incarnation of intellectual property law" is incompatible with "but we don't, so we're going to hold you to the standards you've created". They seem imminently consiste
261.
by yew 14y ago
Not everyone who's a fan of these games now was around to play them then . I think it has more to do with the 'gamer' demographic growing larger . In my experience, niche stuff often has more emotion behind it, evident even when it's no
262.
by yew 14y ago
That's a wonderful sentiment, but I really have to wonder, how far does it go? I've heard the same thing from other people who went on to protest scientific studies of sexuality or research on cochlear implants or a dozen other similar thin
263.
by yew 14y ago
Autism (along with all sorts of other things) isn't just 'a highly analytical mindset.' As you say, it has downsides. Which can be very unpleasant (and not just for other people, either). The idea that we should all just learn to except eve
264.
by yew 14y ago
I find the point about autism especially rich, given that it must be understood at a spectrum, and in a forum such as this, most of us likely sit waaay closer to the end you deride than the population average. Self-criticism being a high
265.
by yew 14y ago
Huh. I'd always thought C++ shared C's definition of NULL, but looking I see that it doesn't. What a weird thing to change. At least they've added some safety with nullptr_t.
266.
by yew 14y ago
The 'fire in a crowded theatre' standard was a metaphor for opposing the draft originating in Schenck v United States . Neither Schenck nor Brandenburg (which is considered to relate to Schenck ) relate to actually yelling the wor
267.
by yew 14y ago
Of course, the Reader use base doesn't owe anything to Google. If Google isn't playing the game of social obligations, talking about 'entitlement' won't get them very far.
268.
by yew 14y ago
They are 'throwing out' the law because it violates the first-sale doctrine, which has substantial legal force. The court simply has differently (and explicitly so) interpreted "under this title." Pay attention to the reference to 106 in pa
269.
by yew 14y ago
It's worth noting that (at least as far as I'm aware) the standard doesn't require this method of implementing multiple inheritance. Although most implementations do use it (and Stroustrup wrote a paper about it, see http://static.usenix.o
270.
by yew 14y ago
Hunter Moore at one point operated a website dedicated to posting pornographic images, ostensibly without the permission of the participants. (I say ostensibly because as far as I know it hasn't gone to court. The media coverage certainly i

More ›