You can learn a fair bit from creationist, which is exactly what bogus arguments they use to try and convince others. Plus, believe it or not, not everyone who spouts nonsense is actually impervious to reason. Sometimes, just sometimes, they are merely ignorant and can be swayed. And as to the University venue, a University is supposed to support discourse, not enforce dogma, even if that dogma is deemed correct. They are teaching creationism, and they aren't forcing anyone to go, they are merely allowing it to be said. Going down the road of 'you can't say THAT here' is a very dangerous turn of thinking and should only be done in the most extreme of cases. Now, if the presenters start advocating for killing all the scientists, feel free to kick them to the curb.

One must remember that the previous case was a matter of trademark, not copyright. Microsoft was deemed to be improperly using the Java trademark in their marketing for J++ (this due to J++ not meeting the Java compatibility standard). Didn't stop MS from making similar API's, they just couldn't call them Java compatible. Also, MS at the time had a license for Java making the previous lawsuit even more dissimilar to the current one.

It is stuff like this that just demonstrates how annoying the internet ad delivery mechanisms are. Not only are they intrusive, bandwidth wasting, and often impairing my user experience, they can also spread malware.

They do?!! Really, what FPS/TPS have you played lately where all the fodder have personalities and roles in the story beyond being guys shooting back at you? Let's be frank, the GRAND majority of all characters in a game are empty shells used as obstacles or background decoration, regardless of gender of the character. You bring up Princess peach, but how much personality does Bowser or Mario have, nearly none, hence why it is so easy to swap pretty much any of them with other characters without having any major impact on the game.

Now, there are definitely examples of terrible usage of female characters in video games, but don't grossly over generalize. That's one of the biggest issues in this situation, one side or the other taking this as an absolute across the board, and when you do that, yeah you'll tick people off as that's a pretty bad misrepresentation of the situation.

If you're just going for code grunt who just needs to implement X, then a degree is largely worthless verses just general coding ability. By contrast, if you're getting lot of 'I have problem X, can you solve it' situations, theory becomes a lot more important and the coding a lot less. However, i suspect the bulk of programming positions are more the former than the latter.

Usually conspiracy requires that you actually have an agreement with at least one other party to commit the offense. Note that said other party however need not be truly intending to do so, nor that said other party's involvement needs to be a big part of the plan, just something deemed legally significant. However, it seems that has become rather nebulous over the years any communication of the intent with some act that could be seen to forward that intent significantly seems to often be the bar now.

Canada had the same thing going on with some absolutely absurd roaming charges. They recently changed the laws to limit how much you can be billed (can't comment to how effective that change was as I've had no cause to find out).

While I sympathize with your position, you are setting an unrealistic bar to beat, which is common place problem in this comparison. Human beings are no where near 100% infallible (in fact, you likely F up every day your drive, you just get away with it because we have a lot of sloppy driving allowances). The purpose here is not to be 100% infallible, as nothing is 100% infallible. The purpose here is to beat human fallibility ratings.

While the driverless cars might get less traditional tickets, I suspect police departments would merely which focuses onto other matters than are ticketable. Head/Tail Light out, ticket. J-walker, ticket. Parked slightly beyond the allowable limit, ticket. I'm sure it will hit their bottom line for a bit as they adapt, but they will adapt.

Indeed, and I've never understood the advice to change your password frequently. The only thing that would help against is if someone has already compromised your account and has been laying low (rather than what they usually do which is clean it out asap). However, changing passwords constantly highly encourages you to use less and less powerful passwords as you can't remember them all the time meaning you're that much more likely to get that initial compromise.

Even if you check every mirror religiously, unless you are Superman and come equipped with X-ray vision or some equivalent, you still will have blind spots including, very importantly, the area this camera system is meant to cover, and even more importantly it is the path you are moving in. Even if you go the extra mile and circle check your vehicle before getting in, that only tells you nothing was behind you when you did the circle check. Due diligence will not eliminate the problem, it can only reduce it. This camera also won't eliminate it, but will likely do a lot more to reduce it.

I got my CS degree and by Biology degree and I can attest at times there were lectures or meetings where stuff was flying miles over my head, but that was true in both departments. The general assumption, I think, in any department is that once you get by the entry level, you're assumed to know stuff, sometimes way beyond what you probably actually know. I think it is just human nature. You go into a group of people that you figure know a topic, you don't give them all background checks to ensure they do actually know the topic, you tend to assume it. The best you can do as someone bringing the topic up is ask if people are really following you and hope they are honest.

I agree that a city ban is useless. Geography and the realities of enforcement make any such ban on firearms pointless as they are easily avoided. However, the point that it is the illegal owners is rather pointless too. At one point, pretty much all guns were legally owned, whether by their manufacturer or some individual. The problem is that it is painfully easy with that many guns out there circulating to get one of those legal guns and have it become an illegal gun. And so far, no one has come up with an even modestly effective means of stopping that conversion process so people naturally look to the next thing up the chain which actually could be enforced if it weren't for a certain amendment.

I remember seeing a job add long time ago that required 5 years experience with Java... when Java was 3 and a bit years old. That was amusing.

Don't get ahead of yourself my friend. This is just the start of the suit. Nothing says this suit will be successful, or that the resolution will be helpful to the employees even if it is successful.