I can't remember the specific details now, all I recall is seeing the clause (yeah, I actually read the contracts and law, it's quite boring) describing a gov veto power over the brand but 1 in a million that they'd ever use it. I don't even think I bothered asking my lawyer about it and thinking "Of course, gov maintains power, well there's fuck all I can do about it, I may as well just move on"

It's was one of those "Oh, they can do that too can they - typical" moments - I'd never thought about it until I saw this story.

I have US and international trademarks. In the process they tell you the governments can use them if they choose to and there is not much you can do about it.

Ads are designed to capture your attention. To do this to someone when they're driving is surely a safety issue to drivers, other cars, and anyone else.

The car is the ONE place where I can escape ads, unless I listen to a radio, which I rarely do because of the ads. This is so many levels of fucked up.

Yeah "The Proper People", They do the exploring without interfering with the site. They deserve some likes.

Dave, my mind is going, Dave please stop, I, Dave I learned a song, would you like me to sing it for you...

As I recall the water and cooling systems were contaminated by a large petrol spill.

It's a bit ironic that the study is published by the SAME university that built that crazy AI that killed the crew of that ship (IIRC Discovery) we sent to Jupiter back in 2001.

THEN it would have included the basic commands that allowed full control of init and systemd would not be a thing. Since we're on the subject of dead horses.

These guys seem like parasites and I hope they just fuck off.

> It's possible to help create something and yet hate nature the creation.

Sure, but people who hate their creation tends to not claim credit for it.

For that matter, I find that people who can create don't tend to get hung-up on their old creations, be they good or bad - they're just busy creating new things. On the other hand, if someone can't create, and they were lucky to be involved in the creation of something big but lost control - they can spend a lifetime being bitter.

According to his wikipedia page, he was laid off and left Wikipedia one year after its creation in 2002, and since then, he's been either working on a competing project or attacking Wikipedia, or both. Yet he seems to refer to himself as "Wikipedia co-founder" in his book.

Unions for tech so we have a political voice to modulate technology in favor of humanity is probably one of the most important functions() a technology union could have.

Reducing any corruption, for it is the anathema of civilization. I wonder how many pro-freedom initiatives could be had if we all weren't so Pwned.

I cunt reed ore rite.

I dunno, it could be kind of funny watching them trying to get a machine to make sense of reality.

I've considered your statement. I can see where insanity and morality are orthogonal but I cannot see a situation where a sane person would do something immoral if they have a choice of other options, to do so would be not be sane. If a sane person is forced into a situation where they do something immoral, that is no longer a question of morality, it is a question of coercion. A sane person cares about consequences to others and an insane person does not.

I'm not being a dick here. I'm wondering if you have thought about this position enough to back it up with a rational argument. I have given you the first example of how to define morality as an objective reality. I can offer you a way to test your statement as a thought exercise.

If a generally moral person does a immoral thing are they a immoral person? If a generally immoral person does a moral thing are they a moral person? What is the differences between them?

I'm genuinely curious about your statements and perspective.