bbrtyth

I second the disagreement. There are a number of companies that deal with interesting technical problems without being complete scum. People like you that don't "discriminate against" morally bankrupt business models are what allow distasteful businesses all the way down to flat-out illegal businesses to continue.

If the presenter is actually saying something that is totally wrong, I would argue that they should have chosen a different topic and Katz was doing that conference a service.

Edit: although maybe he could have been more polite about it? But sitting through the misinformation seems like a waste of everybody's time.

I'm not trying to imply you have a problem with the word "use", I am directly implying that there is some boundary beyond which someone will be offended and you will not be. At which point whose delicate sensibilities should we defer to?

I, for one, take exception that your category of people who enjoy receptive sex seems to be explicitly excluding straight males, such that you've used the exact same "i.e." qualifier twice. It is well within the realm of possibility that a straight male would ask his partner to stimulate his prostate during sex, but you categorically reject that. Are you going to correct your mistake and stop making generalizations? Maybe start using e.g. from now on?

My position is this; it is obvious that the original poster is not making some kind of blanket statement that all people who participate in anal sex are bad, but rather is stating that having a large object in your anus is uncomfortable and having an entity do it to you while you are unwilling is horrible. It's not a statement that was attempting to marginalize minority groups. You are the one who misconstrued it to mean all gay men are evil. Maybe that's why you find people's objections to your attempted control over the English language to be common.

Finally, you seem to be annoyed that I "created a strawman argument" out of you, but you do feel free to contort my statements into "it's political correctness gone mad!", and "you can't say anything anymore!" as well as directly stating that I am someone who "wants to continue to say things that marginalize some minorities". Is ad hominem less of a logical fallacy than making a so-called strawman argument? I'm not going to continue arguing with someone that has such intellectual dishonesty because it's just a waste of time. I am done here and I won't be reading any responses you post, so you can save yourself some time there.

The third party applications are using the Growl framework, yes? Did they write the extra code to install Growl? If so, I am sorry. If, as I suspect, they did not, why does the Growl framework not ask the user when that method is invoked?

What about usage of the word "use"? Surely that implies interacting with another person only for sex and we should stop using it lest we offend.

I was not deflecting, that was my way of talking about the merits of the complaint, to whit, what you object to might be a tiny subset of someone else's objections, in which case who gets to decide? By telling that person not to use that terminology, you are saying you get to decide.

I think we've also seen plenty of people who think they are the sole arbiter of programming languages, and they get called out on it.

And should we also stop saying we've gotten "fucked" for similar reasons? Since you are the curator and sole arbiter of allowable phrases, I'd like to get it all clear while I've got your ear.

Because of people like this (the straw was Growl installing itself for the third time), I've had to completely change the permissions on particularly vulnerable folders in OS X. Anyone creating software, if you are not already aware of this: installing anything that is not completely and clearly explained beforehand makes you a despicable wretch.

More than that, since they would guess one of {e,t,o,i,n}.

I can imagine the head scratching over this design decision 500 years in the future when everyone is an AI that has bajillions of files. Or one really unlucky guy tomorrow.

You and I both. If you haven't already seen it there's a book, (Predictably Irrational, IIRC) that gives some scientific studies on why certain manipulations work. You might enjoy that, I did :)

The group of people that use Android and the group of people that are vehemently against Apple overlaps quite a bit, so this boycott costs them nothing. It's a bit of sound and fury slacktivism that makes them all happy but accomplishes nothing.

Malware authors have learned to spell -- many apps I install under the mistaken assumption that they will not run background services or send information back to the company, in fact do.

I also note that Dell's laptop division has a number of malware authors hard at work.

The problem is you will be up against a legal team funded by millions of dollars and they will get you stuck in red tape for years. I don't think a lawyer would take that on commission. And I don't know a lot about it, but I don't think counter-suits are very lucrative in patent law anyway.

No, not legally, but they will sic their lawyers on you and bleed you dry anyway.

Thanks!

I read there were some calls inbetween that he didn't count. After that, he asked to be put on their Do Not Call list, and they still called a few more times. So violations for the first few and the last few.

That would teach Microsoft a valuable lesson about harassing Android over ridiculous software patents.

But then why do exchanges feel free to reverse trades after the flash crash, but not after something like this flash freeze? From a non-trader's perspective it's as if they do whatever they like.

Every Andriod device, even the ones locked down by the carriers? I find that statement suspect.

I disagree, since both soccer and football are correct terms. It's more like calling it basketball (they are both ball sports, right?), so the correction is warranted.

I am not "swooping in," I noticed your comment and decided to remark that your terminology is incorrect. I did this because by referring to it as stealing you are taking part in the rhetoric that supports such acts as PIPA and SOPA.

And in the minds of everyone in the group, you are trying to tar a number of people with the same brush. It grates on us that you write like you don't understand it's a civil case. But you are more important than everyone else, so let's use your method.

Felony soda tossing: http://www.wireclub.com/topics/off_topic/conversations/T6K1R...

Felony mic check: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/12/1054041/-Occupy-San...

Felony protesting: http://www.soarclub.com/2012/03/felony-protest-in-front-of-g...

I also recall a few years back there was a man charged with a felony for "digging fossils" with his son in the wrong place.

And a man charged as a sex offender for grabbing a child that ran in front of his car (to lecture him).

I found another where a man was charged with felonies for throwing seed pods at police, but that's not really an "every-day accidental crime."

So, yes, most incidents are misdemeanors, but if you commit them in the wrong place, at the wrong time, or with the wrong people present, it can be a felony.

It would be the reverse case if it were non-circular, returning 0.

It's not one character per key, they input phonetically or by type of stroke in the character.

For the dragon, you can use a password field to hide the name, which satisfies the requirements.

Actually I think the image field is a good idea, just have everyone use a typed alias and then draw/render what they want to be called. Maybe an image and/or a sound, to be more inclusive.

You are more willing to read than most, I guess.

Legitimate complaints are welcome, I never implied they were not.

Speaking as an app developer, sometimes people get furious over things that are clearly stated before they download it. It really is easier to get complaints, I can see usage stats that show many more people using my apps daily.

Remember, everyone, if you aren't paying for it, you might be the product. In this case, a Yelp user is the product that Yelp sells to businesses by featuring 5-star reviews and burying the 1-star review.

Featuring the 1-stars and burying the 5-stars would also be quite the incentive for a business to pay Yelp, but it would be cynical to assume they are doing that, too.

Those companies are already paid tons by the government to improve their pipes and we are still lagging behind Europe, Japan, and Korea in terms of bandwidth.

as were "more powerful than a Turing Machine" and "2^aleph_null possible behaviours" for me