Comment Re:Should be simple (Score 1) 92
It sounds like Smart Projects acted in bad faith towards Arduino LLC, in which case Arduino LLC is very likely entitled to the trademark.
This is a huge change from what the country was once like, when it had a robust middle class.
First of all, this is the norm among industrialized economies. Perhaps Norway is different. I haven't checked since the fracking boom.
Second, the thriving middle class was a fairly short lived affair, centered around three decades from 1950–1980. Most affluent societies have now returned to pre-1930s levels of economic inequality. Historically, an affluent middle class is the exception and not the norm.
I had a college roommate whose brawny younger brother dropped out of high school with few skills and somehow got a job with the CAW at a starting wage north of $70,000 per year, back in the early 1980s. He soon had a wife and children, a driveway filled with expensive motor toys, and cash-flow problems.
He was almost certainly employed at a factory making automotive products that discerning consumers—those of us lacking misty-eyed Big Three loyalty—did not wish to purchase.
Meanwhile, high school drop-outs trying to scrape by on non-union wages weren't necessarily doing much better than those same people today, a major difference being that the majority of those fantasy union jobs have now gone away.
Someone needs to get in a time travel booth to go back to the early 1970s to inform the CAW management group that no matter what course of action they chose, their business model (high union wages for semi-skilled labour) could not survive selling shit product. Marketing the hell out shit product was a short-term solution at best (Future Shop—ultimately—not excepted).
As much as the Reagan and Thatcher plutocrats initiated a self-serving destruction of the middle class, the middle class itself was hardly blameless.
Now it's time for the plutocrats to determine whether they can recognize how they are painting themselves into a non-viable corner before they encounter a messy corrective force of their own seeding.
But the difference is that men have the power.
You might have a point if the man she had an affair with was her boss. Instead he was just a colleague. As it was, it didn't reflect sexual harassment--just very poor judgement.
Ars Technica just lost my respect and readership. If they can be this biased toward their agenda even when the facts are obviously to the contrary, they can't be trusted to report on anything.
If you think Ars Technica is bad, you should have read Wired's coverage of the case. Davey Alba was all but wearing a cheerleading outfit for Pao.
I've been here a while too. Long enough to remember when
Not every allegation of sexism/racism/rape/etc. is true.
White, heterosexual, American males are not responsible for all evil in the world.
Sometimes conservatives are wrong, but sometimes they're right too.
It's not okay to support censorship when it comes to Islam unless you're also okay with supporting censorship when it comes to Christianity. Judaism, Hinduism, etc. too.
Bill Gates isn't a Borg and sometimes does some good in the world. Conversely, Steve Jobs isn't a flawless god, and did some bad things in his life.
I could go on, but you get the picture.
And why is THAT important?
Because, if nothing else, it's a strong indicator of her poor judgement.
The partner (?) who did not want to invite the women in the company to a getaway with Al Gore because it would "kill the buzz." The buzz would be killed because the excluded party were women, not because they were unpleasant people.
Maybe that was because the partner recognized that Pao was just the kind of sensitive narcissist who would do things like keep enemies lists and sue people who she perceived as wronging her. Yeah, having someone like that along would in fact be a pretty big "buzzkill" for any fun retreat.
Pao was stupid to sleep with the Indian sleazebag and that probably gave her a reputation in the office. But let us assume she's an utter whore and slut. Do the married men in the company have absolutely no control over themselves?
That argument, of course, cuts both ways. It could as easily be rephrased as "Do the women at KP have absolutely no control of themselves when it comes to married men?"
As expected, Jane provides absolutely no links to back up any of his accusations. And still no evidence that Jane grasps the irony of his lecturing scientists about what scientists think.
And Jane still hasn't admitted he was wrong when he repeated the same false Sky Dragon Slayer things in public over and over.
... Are you aware that the KKK has historically been tied to the Democratic Party of the U.S.? Look it up. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-12-16]
... KKK was a Democrat organization. Look it up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-09]
... Left-wingers who don't know that the KKK has historically been closely tied to the Democrat party? (Even just Wikipedia will tell you that much.) [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-22]
And we should never forget that the KKK was primarily a Democrat organization. Many people don't remember that. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-08]
... How easily people forget. Forget, for example, that Southern segregationists (and even the KKK) were overwhelmingly Democrat over the last century.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-21]
Pardon the FUCK out of me, but unjustifiably being compared to the KKK would piss A LOT of people off. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-05-31]
Is that why you repeatedly bring up the KKK? Because it's a good way to piss a lot of people off?
Truth: Lincoln also suspended Habeus Corpus. And he wanted to ban slavery SO HE COULD SHIP ALL THE NEGROES BACK TO AFRICA.
... Lincoln was not much of a "hero". He was a racist asshole. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-01-18]
... Abraham Lincoln was a hero of the black people for abolishing slavery, yes? [Lonny Eachus, 2012-04-26]
Abe Lincoln: the ultimate "white supremacist". He wanted to end slavery IN ORDER TO send them all back to Africa. #RealHistoryNotSchool [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-17]
Abe Lincoln was the most openly racist President in history. Obama visiting Lincolns' memorial is a tribute to ignorance. Lincoln wanted to end slavery because HE WANTED TO SHIP ALL THE BLACKS BACK TO AFRICA. It's history. Read it. Get educated. And by the way, yes Lincoln actually TRIED to ship some former slaves away, but it ended in disaster. Look it the f* up. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-26]
... Lincoln was a racist among racists. Lincoln wanted to end slavery BECAUSE he wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa. He even tried to implement the plan. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-07]
Lincoln did not like negroes. His stated reason for wanting to free them was so that he could ship them back to Africa. He actually sent one ship full of them to the Caribbean as a trial run. Most of those on board died from smallpox. He was preparing a second expedition when the Civil War broke out.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-21]
Gosh, how could anyone admire a man who was assassinated three days after proposing that some black people deserved the right to vote? Must be a tribute to ignorance, that's the only answer.
Only one person can save the day. Jane/Lonny Eachus, we need you to leap into action and keep lecturing "the black people" on how ignorant their choices of heroes are. Maybe after enough mansplaining by old white guys, we'll finally be able to heal as a nation.
Speaking of arrogance, narcissism and sociopathy, Jane ran away like a snivelling coward instead of showing that he wasn't lying when he repeatedly claimed he's happy to admit his mistakes:
... Slashdotters don't think very highly of sock-puppetry. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]
I didn't "accuse you" but I did suggest the possibility. More than just a possibility, really. And I find the "coincidence" (as I explained above) of him answering for you to be just a bit too unlikely. Actually, I think it's damned near impossible.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]
That might be the most hilarious bit in Jane's comedy act, where he wrongly claims that "there is about a 99.9% probability that "RespekMyAthorati" is a man named "Bryan Killett"".
And yet Jane's 100% wrong, despite being 99.9% certain. As always. And Jane refuses to admit he's wrong. As always. And Jane simultaneously insists that he's happy to admit he's wrong. As always.
But at least Jane finally admitted that Jane is suggesting anything. Baby steps.
Answered here.
I see. So you admit "RespekMyAthorati" is one of your sockpuppet accounts? If not, why are you answering for "him"? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]
Good grief, Jane. That link goes to my clear statement that I'm not "RespekMyAthorati". So it's difficult to imagine that Jane's asking that question in good faith.
But maybe Jane's chronic amnesia is kicking in again, so Jane might actually be honestly confused... once again. If Jane's actually just honestly confused, Jane should try to remember that I answered Jane's comment because Jane used my real name to wrongly accuse me of being "RespekMyAthorati":
... Is this your amateur attempt at the despicable practice of "doxxing"? Besides: I would estimate in good faith that there is about a 99.9% probability that "RespekMyAthorati" is a man named "Bryan Killett", who demonstrably can't stand to be tied down to one pseudonym like his "Khayman80" account, he thinks it's fun to harass other people using multiple sock-puppet accounts.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]
Sadly, Jane will probably never appreciate the ironic contrast between those first two sentences.
Jane probably also won't appreciate the irony that Jane uses my real name to wrongly accuse me of posing as someone else, while complaining bitterly and threatening to call the police and/or sue whenever I point out that Jane is Lonny Eachus. But again, I'll remember this the next time Jane pretends to be offended whenever I point out that Jane is Lonny Eachus.
... You have also been caught sock-puppeting before. So that should be no surprise to anyone, either.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]
Good grief. Once again, the irony of Lonny Eachus's sock-puppet "Jane Q. Public" wrongly accusing me of sock-puppeting is overwhelming.
Once again, Jane's completely wrong. This "khayman80" account is the only account I use at Slashdot. What Jane actually means is that his crippling paranoia has led Jane/Lonny Eachus to repeatedly and baselessly project his own sock-puppeting onto me.
... And it hardly surprises me that you would contradict yourself. You did it a lot when we were actually having our Spencer discussion. You never admitted it, but as I have stated before, it's all a matter of record.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]
I just explained that "RespekMyAthorati" was wrong, and showed that I'd already disagreed with his statement 6 years ago. A real skeptic might interpret this as evidence against Jane's accusation.
But Jane simply interprets that evidence as support for his accusation. This is known as a 'self-sealing' ideology: "(Keeley 1999, Bale 2007, Sunstein and Vermeule 2009), whereby evidence against a conspiratorial belief is re-interpreted as evidence for that belief."
... And it hardly surprises me that you would contradict yourself. You did it a lot when we were actually having our Spencer discussion. You never admitted it, but as I have stated before, it's all a matter of record.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]
Good grief, Jane. You've been baselessly accusing me of contradicting myself, but if you'd learn how to apply conservation of energy then you'd realize that your accusations are misplaced. For instance, from our Spencer discussion:
... As long as the power used by the source and the power used by the cooler are constant as required, any relationship between them has no bearing on the experiment. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-02]
... I was arguing that the input to the heat source was constant but the power to the cooled walls was not stipulated and could be variable.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-20]
Really? Because you'd previously and wrongly claimed that the power used by the cooler was constant. To the untrained eye, that might look like a contradiction. But I'm sure Jane could grace us with a long-winded evasive pile of nonsense which miraculously concludes that Jane's been perfectly consistent.
I've repeatedly explained that only the power passing through a boundary is included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary. I've even linked to textbooks so Jane can verify that this is how "conservation of energy" works.
If Jane ever reads and understands those textbooks, he'd know that the cooler power isn't relevant for the same reason that he could know that a crayon mark doesn't cross the lines in a coloring book. Again, this is really basic physics.
And again, inserting the standard physics definition of the word "net" into Jane's equation reproduces the energy conservation equation Jane's still adamantly rejecting. That's another independent way to see that Jane should consider the possibility that only power passing through a boundary should be included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary.
... I will state again what I have stated so many times before: I don't mind admitting that I am wrong, but first I have to be shown that I am indeed wrong. [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-06]
I don't know about you, but if I say something that is incorrect, I appreciate being corrected. As long as it's done politely.
... I can be stubborn, but i someone can show me I'm wrong, I'm willing to change. But all too often, they've just tried to TELL me I'm wrong, rather than showing me I'm wrong. That's the difference. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-07]
Really? I showed that you were wrong about GPS by writing down the equations showing that 4 satellite locks are required unless the GPS receiver has an atomic clock, but you couldn't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong. Will you do that now, or were you lying when you said you're willing to admit that you're wrong?
... I've made mistakes here and admitted them when they've been pointed out to me. But unless I made a recognizable blunder, I won't admit to being wrong unless someone actually shows that I am. Insults don't quite make it over that line. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-27]
Insults like these?
... If you show that I was wrong or ignorant of some subject, I'll happily admit it and correct myself. But calling names doesn't cut it, and I doubt you can do the other. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-05]
... Unlike you, while I certainly have made mistakes, and changed my mind on some issues over the years, I have been happy to admit it when that actually happens. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]
Good grief, Jane. The last time you made this absurd claim, I listed several examples where I've admitted mistakes.
Again, it's so ironically meta for you to argue endlessly that you admit your mistakes. For instance, after I debunked your lecture on neutrino oscillation, you repeatedly claimed that I missed where you admitted you were wrong. Despite the fact that the last quote in my post was the closest example I could find to a genuine admission that you'd been wrong. Even then, you manufactured unwarranted doubt by inserting words like could and theoretically. At the same time, you made additional claims which were never challenged, like equating the MSW effect with lasers.
You even repeatedly refused to answer my simple question: when you asked "why didn't you bother to repeat the part...?" you actually meant that I had repeated that part and responded to it?
If you're actually happy to admit mistakes, couldn't you start by answering that very simple question?
Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes. -- Mickey Mouse
