If you misconfigure your wireless access point and leave it open, does that mean that it should be legal for anybody to connect to your network and download all the files from your NAS without penalty? Including *those* pictures of you and ____ doing _____ to _____, and your tax returns from the past 5 years?
Yes. You wouldn't blame the recipients if, instead of a misconfigured wireless access point, it was your crazy ex who still had a key who was giving out free copies of those documents, would you?
In particular, if the door is unlocked, that doesn't mean you can walk into the building and take photocopies of everything you find there, then publish the documents.
This isn't an unlocked, unsupervised door to a building, this is your crazy ex who still has a valid key holding a garage sale while you are out of town. The people perusing the contents of your home looking for items to take/buy didn't know the crazy ex did not have the right to let them in.
unless the other side believes that it can win.
Or the other side doesn't care, and just wants to watch the world burn.
Every woman would simply say "I'm nice, I'm not going to abuse my position." And that leaves you...
to reply with "I wasn't talking about you."
And, if the reply is "that would never happen," or "that's so rate as to be inconsequential," then it's not you who is the sexist.
That kind of reply sounds more like it would be born of naivete than of sexism. In other words, it also is not the replier who is sexist.
But I guess it would depend on the tone that it was delivered in.
The issue isn't that Hasbro should have already trademarked "candy", it's that "candy" shouldn't be able to be trademarked at all.
Expressing surprise that Hasbro did not already have the trademark, is not the same thing as saying "I think the word 'candy' should be allowed to be trademarked". I agree that "candy" should not be trademarked, but I can also still express surprise that Hasbro had not already done it.
Let's not pretend that this man didn't understand or even endorse the death penalty.
That is an interesting theory. Should the death penalty be reserved only for those who support it?
I would say that no, it should be abolished completely. While I support the concept, the risks of getting things wrong are not worth it IMO.
How about we save executions for only people who break laws and participated in enforcing or making laws.
Er, what? Is that "for people who break laws, and for people who participated in enforcing or making laws", or is that "for enforcers/makers of laws who also break the law"?
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
