So, who should the judge jail, Apple's CEO?
So, who should the judge jail, Apple's CEO?
I, on the other hand, prefer to think the exact opposite.
I think most people are born intelligent. You are either enabled to form the correct neural connections or raised in a way that makes your intelligence degrade significantly.
Sure it does!
You also don't make any speling mistakes, are never WRONG about your FACTS, and you rule the physics with your intellect.
No, you see this is an individual.
Of course individuals have no right to "Trade" - that's for corporations.
"The fact that there are no disc-shaped aircraft in the skies today, though, suggests that the USAF's flying saucer efforts probably never got past the prototype stage."
Not so! It in fact suggests that the Greys filed a cease-and-desist suit with the Galactic Court to stop humans from producing a craft in that shape. They won, and *that* was when the Americans really sat up and started taking notice of Patents.
Other galactic species are talking behind their back, though, because the Greys sued with a design patent based on "rounded corners" for a flying saucer...
Fortunately, we do not let the people who feel themselves directly harmed decide upon criminal punishments.
The parent was saying that AS A SOCIETY we should ignore it, not that the people directly involved would be able to do so.
Unfortunately, you have misread the parent and I will be charitable and say that, rather than you simply disagree and are clutching at straws.
Uncharitably, I then read your next line and must conclude that you are willing to equate desecration of Jewish cemeteries (presumably to incite the Nazi knee-jerk response) with someone REPOSTING SOMETHING THEY FOUND to Facebook.
I do hope you are never in any decision making capability where you can affect people's lives.
Oh no, Matthew Woods is the big winner in this.
He has clear insight, in a way that most of use are only peripherally aware of, into where government is trying to take us.
No doubt that although he will keep his head a bit lower profile, there has been a sea change in his heart.
You can't get that sort of Win without having that sort of experience.
If you consider any water that has been in the interior or a cell of a human being as "human", then it is entirely correct to call most beer - diluted humans.
"Clever of them to patent this, since knock-off space-junk removal systems are in such high demand"
If one does not think that the orbit around earth is going to be increasingly cluttered on is just not looking very far.
It is sad on a supposed tech and science site for someone to suggest that the clutter will not become a problem.
The refrain seems to be why patent anything that doesn't have immediate use.
What a crock of shit.
I would rather not give any money to people driving this type of frame of ideology for the internet.
That's one more site I need to stay away from, I'm glad that they are self-flagging.
I hope that all similar sites follow their awesome lead, it provides a wonderful signalling mechanism.
I hardly need to do any work at all if they would all just do that.
It would be like the 'evil bit" made manifest.
I wish that were the case...
caveat - this is talking about as the poster requested, production deployment of web services from big companies.
The software should be able to be deployed by nearly anyone familiar. Any changes to deployment are modifications of install scripts or applications.
Actual deployment to a production environment should be able to be done by a lot of different roles.
I prefer not to have developers deploy because they have access to a lot of different possible packages.
Build should be produced by CM.
Test should be able to install on their test systems, as checking the install is part of the test process.
Once a gold build is produced, the people administering the production application servers or ESBs should probably manage the package deployment.
Please don't tell me the developers are also administering the production boxes!
But really, test is familiar, development is familiar, systems should even be familiar... It could really be any of them.
"Should" then just becomes a choice made, and someone puts it down on their time card.
Now, a lot of people have come up with the work around exposed by this mandate - smile when committing a crime.
So the next logical step is to make smiling in public illegal.
Then, they will have less trouble IDing criminals.
Hell, even police officers can ID smiling people.
Perhaps we can then save money by getting rid of the cameras, since criminals are now easy to identify.
I have no idea where you get avoiding repercussions is a bad thing.
That is simply a stupid argument.
OF COURSE I want to be anonymous to avoid repercussions.
I find it obvious that one needs to avoid repercussions when discussing controversial and/or political topics with a worldwide audience.
I find it obvious that both governments, corporations, groups, and individuals might decide to act in a way I would find objectionable, based on comments I have/will make.
Please let me know what you find wrong with that.
in fact, I want my "phone" to be a tablet with the ability to hook up a bluetooth headset.
A normal phone and data plan.
Now, why doesn't anyone make that?
Well, we have folks say that this is entirely reasonable, and if Neflix makes enough profit they should be forced to do it.
We have folks say that Netflix is not the content creator and has no obligation whatsoever, as a distributor, to alter the items it is distributing.
Now, we have had someone say that adding subtitles is a $5-$9 dollar a minute thing.
We had someone else say that the total catalogue was around 4400 items that are not CC'd.
We had others say that everything distributed since "X" is already CC'd.
At (being generous) 150 minutes a film, that comes to... $3.3M on the low and ~$6M on the high.
Now, are they also to provide CC translations in any other language than English?
If so, which?
What I have not heard is that it is probably the obligation of the distributors to go fix their own Items, since they are the ones actually disaccomodating the deaf.
Of course, that would not go over too well. They would probably just pull the titles instead of incur the ~$6M cost.
Why aren't they suing the content providers?
If someone could answer this, I would really appreciate it!
Nobody's gonna believe that computers are intelligent until they start coming in late and lying about it.