I'm sure there are plenty of persons capable of driving a car without having a driver's licence, but I still prefer having such a regulation in place... Not all regulations are good, but abolishing regulations blindly is no panacea either. And in the case of Net Neutrality, the pros definitely outweighs the cons.
I think what you want might be the setting "Show application menu" in the "Top bar" category found if you use gnome-tweak-tool. If you choose NOT to show the application menu in the top bar, it'll show up in the application window instead.
Even some large commercial airports have only one runway. Europe's busiest airport, Heathrow, has only got two runways. So the amount of runways doesn't necessarily give a proper indication of the size of the airport.
Coach class being downgraded is a far too sad reality these days though. A lot of airlines are introducing "light" versions of their coach class -- with even less service than normal, but instead of dropping the prices for that category, they position it where coach used to be and market the old coach as plus, extra or similar.
Then again, they're still a lot better than scum such as Ryanair...
You might still want to connect safely, then have the communication in clear text. When transferring say, 64GB of photos to your NAS, you might not care that much whether someone can eavesdrop on the transfer itself, but it'd suck to give away your password.
Though what with the typical "security" of consumer NAS devices, I guess there are enough security vulnerabilities to make cleartext passwords mostly irrelevant anyway.
Also, the intention is clearly to to benefit the Authors and Inventors. NOT publishers. NOT performers. NOT record companies. NOT patent trolls. NOT descendants of the original Author/Inventor.
Any sensible distribution contains Qt already, meaning that you don't need to (and shouldn't) bundle Qt with you app. Those 38MB might seem a lot, but if you spread that out over all apps that use Qt (and factor in all non-Qt apps that also uses icu, which nowadays is almost everything) it's basically background noise.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that you won't intend to ever flying on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, considering that they even had several issues that made it *past* testing? I seem to recall Airbus also having some issues. Furthermore I'm guessing you won't use any Apple, Dell, Sony, or Lenovo -- those are the ones I remember, I bet there are more -- laptops either. Their exploding batteries made it past testing.
All projects have issues. That's why you have reviews, testing, redesign, more reviews, more testing, and for anything that needs high reliability, lots and lots of fail-safes. For some products, where liability is low, companies don't care too much about this. Not so here though. The test process worked properly; the fact that the valves either weren't according to spec, or that the spec wasn't resilient enough, was identified. The problem will be fixed, things will be reviewed and tested again, against the new spec or component.
A nuclear power plant that gets delayed because of safety-related improvements feels a lot better than one that's finished on time. In one case you know that they at least took the safety issues seriously. In the other case you're left wondering whether everything was perfect to begin with, or if they just ignored possible issues.
The self-published authors would hardly be represented by TPA, right? TPA says "writers need to be paid and publishers need to be able to continue to innovate and invest in new talent and material." -- IOW sure, the authors might suffer, but the important thing is that we can shaft them for money. I mean seriously, what are those "innovations" that the publishers have come up with? e-books? Nope. Self-publish solutions? Nope. Oh, I know -- sales bolstered by the self-feedback effect of bestseller lists, DRM on e-books, and insane regulations for libraries that makes it so expensive to lend e-books that most of them still offer only paper books, even though it should be obvious that e-books would be an ideal solution for libraries.
Of all the authors of e-books I've read, only 3-4 have been self-published (one of them being Cory Doctorow, but he has a regular publisher too); two of them publish using sites where people can pay either before (how much do you anticipate this book?) or after (what did you think the book was worth?).
Face it, the old type of publishers don't really serve much of a purpose in the world of e-books, just like the old type of record companies don't really serve much of a purpose in the world of digital music sales. Lucky for them they have the ear of the governments and don't need to worry about catching up with reality...
For some reason I read that as "paying the way for copyright term extension". After realising that I'd misread it I corrected myself. Then corrected myself again when I realised that the misread version makes more sense.
Surely a class 4 should be enough? If you have to deal with temporary or prolonged soaking in liquid you've got bigger problems; a crawlspace isn't supposed to be under water.
You know what? Books contain an even greater potential for spoilers. Yet I bet you don't typically flip to the last chapter and read that before reading the rest of the book. Yet those who do probably do so because they want to. Just like no gamer would dive into the source code unless they had a reason to.
Just use a variant of the Donald Knuth reward check method. The first patent that gets invalidated will incur a 1 cent cut from the patent office budget. The second one a 2 cent cut, etc. After a few weeks the USPTA would have no option except shut down.
FWIW the film in question (Beck - Levande begravd) was a total fiasco at the box office... The fine (if ever paid) would likely provide a higher income than the film netted at the cinema.
Nope. If he was intending to use possessive sense then that "for" shouldn't be there.
Either he meant "others' spelling" ("other people's spelling") or "someone else's spelling" or "others about spelling" (ok, I admit, "for" might possible correct too -- English is not my native tongue, nor am I a language scholar). "other's for spelling" doesn't make sense.
In before the, now, stereotypical US response of "your governments do it too!"...
1) No, we have liberty and freedom in Europe.
I dunno about other European countries, but in Sweden we definitely have a counterpart to NSA (FRA) that does similarly all-encompassing surveillance, all of course under the guise of "anti-terrorism". As an added "bonus" the laws regulating FRA explicitly says that they're allowed to exchange the information with foreign nations (read the US).
To dupe citizens into believing that the information isn't abused (of course the mere fact that the information is collected is abuse, but...) a special group has been set up to monitor the use of the information. But despite finding a lot of violations of the (already very permissive) regulations, FRA does not rectify any of their so called mistakes.
One example is that they're not allowed to save the information more than a certain time period (I believe it's 6 months). "Oh, but we copied the information to a different database! Now it's not raw data anymore, it's refined intellgence reports that aren't covered by that time limitation".
But other than that I agree. Two (or many) wrongs doesn't make a right.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure there are plenty of persons capable of driving a car without having a driver's licence, but I still prefer having such a regulation in place... Not all regulations are good, but abolishing regulations blindly is no panacea either. And in the case of Net Neutrality, the pros definitely outweighs the cons.
Exactly! This close to the election every senator and representative who is up for election should should proposing / voting on bills! Riiiiight?
I think what you want might be the setting "Show application menu" in the "Top bar" category found if you use gnome-tweak-tool. If you choose NOT to show the application menu in the top bar, it'll show up in the application window instead.
Even some large commercial airports have only one runway. Europe's busiest airport, Heathrow, has only got two runways. So the amount of runways doesn't necessarily give a proper indication of the size of the airport.
Coach class being downgraded is a far too sad reality these days though. A lot of airlines are introducing "light" versions of their coach class -- with even less service than normal, but instead of dropping the prices for that category, they position it where coach used to be and market the old coach as plus, extra or similar.
Then again, they're still a lot better than scum such as Ryanair...
You might still want to connect safely, then have the communication in clear text. When transferring say, 64GB of photos to your NAS, you might not care that much whether someone can eavesdrop on the transfer itself, but it'd suck to give away your password.
Though what with the typical "security" of consumer NAS devices, I guess there are enough security vulnerabilities to make cleartext passwords mostly irrelevant anyway.
Also, the intention is clearly to to benefit the Authors and Inventors. NOT publishers. NOT performers. NOT record companies. NOT patent trolls. NOT descendants of the original Author/Inventor.
Any sensible distribution contains Qt already, meaning that you don't need to (and shouldn't) bundle Qt with you app. Those 38MB might seem a lot, but if you spread that out over all apps that use Qt (and factor in all non-Qt apps that also uses icu, which nowadays is almost everything) it's basically background noise.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that you won't intend to ever flying on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, considering that they even had several issues that made it *past* testing? I seem to recall Airbus also having some issues. Furthermore I'm guessing you won't use any Apple, Dell, Sony, or Lenovo -- those are the ones I remember, I bet there are more -- laptops either. Their exploding batteries made it past testing.
All projects have issues. That's why you have reviews, testing, redesign, more reviews, more testing, and for anything that needs high reliability, lots and lots of fail-safes. For some products, where liability is low, companies don't care too much about this. Not so here though. The test process worked properly; the fact that the valves either weren't according to spec, or that the spec wasn't resilient enough, was identified. The problem will be fixed, things will be reviewed and tested again, against the new spec or component.
A nuclear power plant that gets delayed because of safety-related improvements feels a lot better than one that's finished on time. In one case you know that they at least took the safety issues seriously. In the other case you're left wondering whether everything was perfect to begin with, or if they just ignored possible issues.
The self-published authors would hardly be represented by TPA, right? TPA says "writers need to be paid and publishers need to be able to continue to innovate and invest in new talent and material." -- IOW sure, the authors might suffer, but the important thing is that we can shaft them for money. I mean seriously, what are those "innovations" that the publishers have come up with? e-books? Nope. Self-publish solutions? Nope. Oh, I know -- sales bolstered by the self-feedback effect of bestseller lists, DRM on e-books, and insane regulations for libraries that makes it so expensive to lend e-books that most of them still offer only paper books, even though it should be obvious that e-books would be an ideal solution for libraries.
Of all the authors of e-books I've read, only 3-4 have been self-published (one of them being Cory Doctorow, but he has a regular publisher too); two of them publish using sites where people can pay either before (how much do you anticipate this book?) or after (what did you think the book was worth?).
Face it, the old type of publishers don't really serve much of a purpose in the world of e-books, just like the old type of record companies don't really serve much of a purpose in the world of digital music sales. Lucky for them they have the ear of the governments and don't need to worry about catching up with reality...
You're confusing the World Wide Web with the Internet. A common mistake, but a mistake never the less.
In what alternate history is 1994 pre-internet?!
For some reason I read that as "paying the way for copyright term extension". After realising that I'd misread it I corrected myself. Then corrected myself again when I realised that the misread version makes more sense.
This would be the perfect opportunity for the Pope to fire a second salvo by commenting on the Turkish oppression of its Kurdish minority...
I didn't know it was possible to smoke whiskey
Well, you're indeed correct; whisky is made through treating the malt with peat smoke. Whiskey, otoh, isn't.
Surely a class 4 should be enough? If you have to deal with temporary or prolonged soaking in liquid you've got bigger problems; a crawlspace isn't supposed to be under water.
You know what? Books contain an even greater potential for spoilers. Yet I bet you don't typically flip to the last chapter and read that before reading the rest of the book. Yet those who do probably do so because they want to. Just like no gamer would dive into the source code unless they had a reason to.
Not needed if you've ever heard of Donald Knuth's reward checks, something that I'd expect most Slashdot readers have.
2006 is almost a decade ago...
Just use a variant of the Donald Knuth reward check method. The first patent that gets invalidated will incur a 1 cent cut from the patent office budget. The second one a 2 cent cut, etc. After a few weeks the USPTA would have no option except shut down.
I'm fairly certain that the terms of service explicitly forbids that kind of use.
FWIW the film in question (Beck - Levande begravd) was a total fiasco at the box office... The fine (if ever paid) would likely provide a higher income than the film netted at the cinema.
The *real* solution is to stop issuing software patents in the short term and patents in general in the longer term.
Nope. If he was intending to use possessive sense then that "for" shouldn't be there.
Either he meant "others' spelling" ("other people's spelling") or "someone else's spelling" or "others about spelling" (ok, I admit, "for" might possible correct too -- English is not my native tongue, nor am I a language scholar). "other's for spelling" doesn't make sense.
I dunno about other European countries, but in Sweden we definitely have a counterpart to NSA (FRA) that does similarly all-encompassing surveillance, all of course under the guise of "anti-terrorism". As an added "bonus" the laws regulating FRA explicitly says that they're allowed to exchange the information with foreign nations (read the US).
To dupe citizens into believing that the information isn't abused (of course the mere fact that the information is collected is abuse, but...) a special group has been set up to monitor the use of the information. But despite finding a lot of violations of the (already very permissive) regulations, FRA does not rectify any of their so called mistakes.
One example is that they're not allowed to save the information more than a certain time period (I believe it's 6 months). "Oh, but we copied the information to a different database! Now it's not raw data anymore, it's refined intellgence reports that aren't covered by that time limitation".
But other than that I agree. Two (or many) wrongs doesn't make a right.