...will be in the bill? Politicians have a habit of rolling lots of things into one in bills, and you can only get all or nothing.
One thing I have never understood is how that works in the US system. There's normally plenty of time in the UK to take amendments on a Bill before you get to the take it or leave it stage.
I do not understand how society could even function if you cannot at least quote with citations someone else without breaking the law.
You can. The current state of the law is more restrictive than the US law, particularly as regards format shifting. Limited quotes for review are perfectly fine. As others have posted, see under 'Fair dealing'.
It's still a bit messy though. What it really means is that 'These things are harmless and trivial, but still illegal. So rather than making them legal, we'll just make a non-binding promise not to prosecute.'
He's reacting to the courts tossing some convictions out on appeal. So case law says harmless things are legal; I agree it would be better if Parliament reframed the law a bit. However, this isn't a situation where the CPS has decided unilaterally not to prosecure.
Whether you like that situation is a different matter, but you can't argue that the two are similar.
The trouble is you are starting from an absurd defintion of 'free speech', which is essentially that free speech is by definition whatever is allowed in America. Judged by that standard, of course America does well.
The CPS not bringing a case doesn't mean they think he's innocent, just that they don't think it's worth the trouble to try to prosecute him.
That's pretty much the default attitude of the CPS; prosecution is really too much of a bother and expense. Police officers always say CPS stands for "Couldn’t Prosecute Satan". You need to keep that it mind when asking "why wasn't X charged?"
I don't think foreign politicians, included elected politicians, have any special legal state anywhere outside their own country. It's diplomates, embassy employees etc.
You can be granted a diplomatic passport, and it's a matter of custom and keeping good relations not to mess with visiting VIPs. It doesn't confer diplomatic immunity, as Senator Pinochet discovered.
In the US, the PATRIOT act can compel someone to hand over the information without any real judicial oversight and a requirement they don't tell anybody. I assume the UK is about the same.
Second, if mining weren't profitable for someone, it wouldn't be done - period. Yet there are miners, and it's unreasonable to assume they're all speculating that the exchange rate will rise while paying bills with hopium.
Mining will be done as long as it's worth the electricty to keep running the rigs. Whether the miners get to repay their capital costs is a different question.
Does a contributed two line patch drag the entire original proprietary source into the GPL?
Probably not. However, the major issue is that their proprietary system runs the Linux kernel. So they are shipping a product with an embedded Linux kernel, and arguing it isn't a derivative work.
HP do now support code signing, whereas previously they had code singeing. And of course, everyone with a networked HP printer has applied the patches, right?
There is no way in the US that a judge could gag you from mentioning *other* court cases or for that matter prevent you from stating your own opinion contrary to the judge's.
The court explicitly said in its order Apple was free to say what it liked elsewhere.
'Nothing in this Order shall prevent the Appellant from publishing any comment or information regarding the dispute between the parties in respect of the Samsung Galaxy Tablet computers in issue in this appeal.'
However, when the court ordered Apple to publish a notice to clear up any misunderstanding, Apple wasn't free to add its own words to the body of the notice, especially when they were themselves misleading, and in some cases untrue.
"I do not consider it was open to Apple to add matter in the middle of the notice we ordered to be published"
"Even if that were not so, it cannot be legitimate to break up the ordered notice with false material."
You see them (or probably don't see them) mostly in embedded processors: network gear, printers etc., although ARM seem to be cutting into that market recently.
Yes and money from the government, although, in return, the government keeps the income from Crown lands, which would probably be more. Although that gets one into discussions of hereditary wealth, and right of conquest which could go on for ever...
Someone feel free to correct me, but from memory the only other company bidding on the rural broadband contracts was Siemens, and they've hit the government's blacklist due to repeated failures to deliver.
Slashdot Mirror
...will be in the bill? Politicians have a habit of rolling lots of things into one in bills, and you can only get all or nothing.
One thing I have never understood is how that works in the US system. There's normally plenty of time in the UK to take amendments on a Bill before you get to the take it or leave it stage.
I do not understand how society could even function if you cannot at least quote with citations someone else without breaking the law.
You can. The current state of the law is more restrictive than the US law, particularly as regards format shifting. Limited quotes for review are perfectly fine. As others have posted, see under 'Fair dealing'.
It's still a bit messy though. What it really means is that 'These things are harmless and trivial, but still illegal. So rather than making them legal, we'll just make a non-binding promise not to prosecute.'
He's reacting to the courts tossing some convictions out on appeal. So case law says harmless things are legal; I agree it would be better if Parliament reframed the law a bit. However, this isn't a situation where the CPS has decided unilaterally not to prosecure.
Whether you like that situation is a different matter, but you can't argue that the two are similar.
The trouble is you are starting from an absurd defintion of 'free speech', which is essentially that free speech is by definition whatever is allowed in America. Judged by that standard, of course America does well.
The CPS not bringing a case doesn't mean they think he's innocent, just that they don't think it's worth the trouble to try to prosecute him.
That's pretty much the default attitude of the CPS; prosecution is really too much of a bother and expense. Police officers always say CPS stands for "Couldn’t Prosecute Satan". You need to keep that it mind when asking "why wasn't X charged?"
A double conversion UPS would do the job.
That would be 000, though.
I don't think foreign politicians, included elected politicians, have any special legal state anywhere outside their own country. It's diplomates, embassy employees etc.
You can be granted a diplomatic passport, and it's a matter of custom and keeping good relations not to mess with visiting VIPs. It doesn't confer diplomatic immunity, as Senator Pinochet discovered.
In the US, the PATRIOT act can compel someone to hand over the information without any real judicial oversight and a requirement they don't tell anybody. I assume the UK is about the same.
As far as I know, you still need a court order in the UK. http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Detailed_specialist_guides/SECTION_29_GPN_V1.ashx
Arbitrage between different exchanges..
I think, "the keys are just on the floor there but I have no idea how they got there", would be closest.
He's PC World's cousin. http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2012/11/19/police_constable_world_error/
Exactly. All trade is local.
What do people think Amazon and Walmart do with their money?
Channel it though a string of offshore tax havens and shell companies to avoid paying tax?
Second, if mining weren't profitable for someone, it wouldn't be done - period. Yet there are miners, and it's unreasonable to assume they're all speculating that the exchange rate will rise while paying bills with hopium.
Mining will be done as long as it's worth the electricty to keep running the rigs. Whether the miners get to repay their capital costs is a different question.
Does a contributed two line patch drag the entire original proprietary source into the GPL?
Probably not. However, the major issue is that their proprietary system runs the Linux kernel. So they are shipping a product with an embedded Linux kernel, and arguing it isn't a derivative work.
so your telling me that I can screw your entire print service and DOS it by sending it a print job ?
..and halt and catch fire, possibly. http://redtape.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/11/29/9076395-exclusive-millions-of-printers-open-to-devastating-hack-attack-researchers-say
HP do now support code signing, whereas previously they had code singeing. And of course, everyone with a networked HP printer has applied the patches, right?
There is no way in the US that a judge could gag you from mentioning *other* court cases or for that matter prevent you from stating your own opinion contrary to the judge's.
The court explicitly said in its order Apple was free to say what it liked elsewhere.
'Nothing in this Order shall prevent the Appellant from publishing any comment or information regarding the dispute between the parties in respect of the Samsung Galaxy Tablet computers in issue in this appeal.'
However, when the court ordered Apple to publish a notice to clear up any misunderstanding, Apple wasn't free to add its own words to the body of the notice, especially when they were themselves misleading, and in some cases untrue.
"I do not consider it was open to Apple to add matter in the middle of the notice we ordered to be published"
"Even if that were not so, it cannot be legitimate to break up the ordered notice with false material."
I thought MIPS was dead.
You see them (or probably don't see them) mostly in embedded processors: network gear, printers etc., although ARM seem to be cutting into that market recently.
..but HP?
Is the new printer lineup Lovecraftian?
No, just the drivers.
Here in Argentina, no one has a TV in the living or dining room, it is considered to be of poor taste.
I guess land prices in Argentina must be cheap. if everyone has a house that big...
Here's a crazy idea... how about governments are only allowed to bury information for 30 or 40 years?
That's traditionally the way that it worked in the UK and various other countries before FoI laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_year_rule
There are certainly distributions out there using 3.4 and 3.5 kernels.
Yes, but not many of them will push kernel updates all the way through to end users in a couple of weeks.
She is exempted from taxes?
Yes and money from the government, although, in return, the government keeps the income from Crown lands, which would probably be more. Although that gets one into discussions of hereditary wealth, and right of conquest which could go on for ever...
Someone feel free to correct me, but from memory the only other company bidding on the rural broadband contracts was Siemens, and they've hit the government's blacklist due to repeated failures to deliver.
Fujitsu. http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/fujitsu-blacklisted-government-92249
He didn't forget Ultima: Origin was the first name on the list.