Not the "legal" boxes: they complain about illegal boxes sold with a preinstalled version of Kodi modified with addons facilitating piracy. The article talks about "pirate boxes" and cites a link to another article explaining their fight against piracy-oriented media boxes sold on eBay and advertised as running Kodi.
I think the devs complain about media boxes which are sold with a preinstalled version of Kodi modified to facilitate piracy and advertised as running "Kodi". This gives Kodi a bad reputation which likely is the reason the software was rejected. Kodi "vanilla" does not facilitate piracy in any way and they are trying to fight the abuse of their software's name.
You can have all the spine you want but it doesn't mean you have the contractual force to avoid getting screwed by a company, especially if you are at the beginning of your career. That's the reason regulation exists to balance out things and also the reason these protections don't apply if your salary is very high: if you get paid so much you supposedly already have enough contractual force without need of additional regulations.
So the lack of proper regulation allows companies to screw their employees? Paint me shocked...
Here companies are mandated by law to pay overtime and if it's after certain hours or above a certain amount it has to be paid *more* than the normal hourly rate. In my current company I was actually forbidden entry on the office on Saturday afternoon since I didn't get the proper authorisation by my manager. When I talked with him he was unwilling to give it to me since overtime on Saturday costs more than due time in the week.
Basically I never did unpaid overtime in my career, but I hope to in the future: the law protects only employees with a salary under 175K or something.
University is pretty cheap in almost all Europe. Most countries have tuitions of about 1000$ per year, which include administrative costs. More than a few countries offer completely free university to EU citizens and Finland offers free university to non-EU citizens too.
Playing soccer is exercise in and of itself, that's how. Of course, elite players work out so they can play soccer (etc) better, but the game itself is excellent exercise, hence it's a sport.
Then competitive driving is a sport too since it's excellent exercise by itself too. Of course serious racers work out so they can race better, but competitive driving itself is excellent exercise, hence it's a sport. Actually some competitive motor racing sports are among the most physically demanding sports in existence.
While I don't necessarily disagree, I still don't think many (anyone?) goes for a drive for exercise, and if they do, then I'm pretty sure a coach of some sort would tell them "You're doing it wrong. Drive for practise; play sports for exercise, stamina, cardio, strength..."
I know a lot of people who use go-karting as a way to train their stamina, cardio, strength and have fun. Other kinds of racing sports are typically much more expensive, so you are unlikely to do them exclusively for "exercising", but go-karting is relatively affordable.
Most coaches would tell you you're doing it wrong if you play soccer as exercise too and they would be actually technically right: without the proper physical preparation it's pretty easy to get injuried. Actually exercise is not the reason most people play soccer anyway: they do because they enjoy playing it, not because they want to exercise.
When race drivers go for a drive to get exercise, I'd consider driving a sport (despite the motor-sport moniker).
I'm not saying the drivers aren't fit, just that they use sports to get fit so they can drive competitively.
Which differs for other sports like soccer in which way exactly? If you don't have basic strength, agility and stamina you will not be able to play soccer effectively. Basic training comes before training with the ball or actually playing a match for soccer players too. I see no difference in the case of competitive driving.
I think you don't understand the physical fitness required. I might understand that hopping on a F1 is not feasible, but hopping on a competitive 2-stroke 125cc go-kart is. Most newcomers last a couple of laps before they are completely exhausted.
Car parking speeds are so slow that you can easily slam the brake and stop the car instantly if you need to, even with your foot far off the brake. Actually when I park my foot is always far off the brake since I have to operate the clutch.
That's only true if the capability is supposed to be used without supervision, which is never the case with current *assistive* driving or parking technologies. That's why they are called "assistive": they might help you but the ultimate responsibility of what the car does is still yours as a driver.
We have periodic checks for old vehicles but for new vehicles they are not required anymore. All relatively new vehicles sold are required to have electronic injection which measures emissions constantly.
A fugitive is the antithesis of the organisation, conference and attendees. It's a conference for and about the legal profession. As far as I'm aware, Assange has zero legal qualifications whatsoever.
He's involved in whistleblower activity detailing alleged abuses of the legal system and his status as a fugitive is likely to be linked to this more than the supposed rape accusations. But even assuming the rape accusation to be sound, his activity in whistleblowing makes him definitely relevant "for and about the legal profession".
That's like saying you should invite a convicted paedophile to your school safety talk, or a rapist to your rape counselling group. Maybe it SOUNDS good and fair and balanced, but the practicality is insanely stupid.
Why insanely stupid? It might give some insight on why these people did what they did. It's not a matter of fairness, it's a matter of having a look at the other side to try to understand. You seem to imply that merely listening to them would mean justifying them or giving them reason, which is not the case.
Criminals (and Assange is one, legally speaking, in the UK for skipping UK court bail) DO NOT get a say in how their justice system handles them, or invited to conferences about the legal profession. Reasonable outsiders make sure the law is fair and balanced for all, but the criminals themselves? No.
Talking at a conference does not in any way imply "having a say" in anything. Whoever wants to write laws fair, balanced and effective has to meet the criminals too to be able to better understand why some crimes happen, how to prevent them and/or mitigate them.
Not sure about how it works in the USA but in Europe source is not generics' manufacturers, it's the European Medicines Agency which mandates that generics have to be manufactured with exaclty the same quality and active component dosages than the brand reference medicine: only name, packaging and inactive components can differ (and obviously, price).
As far as I know Miele already offers its own selection of recommended products to use with its appliances and for good reason, since most cheap products can be actually crap which would lower the result's quality and most important reduce the lifetime of the appliances. Since these appliances can be sold with a 10 years warranty it can be a big issue.
This might be the case in the US, but in other countries the law might be different. Not sure about Japan, but countries in which proving "truth" is not a valid defence against an accusation of defamation do exist.
Is this assumption based on something more than your personal opinion? Maybe men negotiating better is the reason they are seen as confident and women negotiating not so well is the reason they are seena s bitchy. You know, "It's cultural" sounds suspiciusly like "there is a convenient excuse which shifts the blame away from the women for their subpar performance".
Of course they might be immature, since what they might consider "sexually inappropriate" might be perfectly fine within that specific working environment, making them the problem. If you want to work as a waitress in a topless bar and consider working topless "sexually inappropriate" the problem is yours: nobody forces you to work there as nobody forces you to contribute to this specific project.
Basically "inappropriate" sometimes just means "I personally don't like it so it should not exist at all".
Even with bridges you might have to show a preliminary to-scale model which gets discussed and iterated upon. The difference is that with bridges there is a fundamental difference and a huge delta in costs between building a to-scale model and building the real thing. So you don't build a bridge that way because you don't have the same capabilities as with software.
You're still missing the point. The amount of sheet metal surrounding you doesn't determine your worth but it surely determines the outcome of a collision with something else, be it your fault or not or even without a fault at all. A pedestrian has to accept reality: if he gets hit by a car he easily risks injury or death, which means that for him being careless when crossing is much more dangerous.
Common advice for "soft" street users, be it pedestrian, cyclist or motocyclists, is to assume that everyone else is either completely incompetent or actively trying to kill you since in case of accident you dont want to be right but dead, you want to avoid the accident in the first place.
You cannot force other drivers to always pay attention or always "do their jobs": it would be nice but reality begs to differ. Being defensive is the best survival strategy.
You are missing the point. This time this pedestrian met a responsible driver who noticed him and anticipated his careless crossing but next time he might meet a distracted or intoxicated or incompetent driver and get hit: then of course the driver would be in the wrong for not "doing his job", but it would be a pretty meager consolation for the pedestrian who would be dead.
In Switzerland the law states that you have to play an "active role". You can be assisted with a drinking straw if you are unable to actually handle the drink (e.g. tetraplegic).
This is usually not a problem at all unless you have a model like the Logitec M500 which has a small button to enable "free-spinning mode" and forget to set it to click mode.
Slashdot Mirror
Not the "legal" boxes: they complain about illegal boxes sold with a preinstalled version of Kodi modified with addons facilitating piracy. The article talks about "pirate boxes" and cites a link to another article explaining their fight against piracy-oriented media boxes sold on eBay and advertised as running Kodi.
I think the devs complain about media boxes which are sold with a preinstalled version of Kodi modified to facilitate piracy and advertised as running "Kodi". This gives Kodi a bad reputation which likely is the reason the software was rejected. Kodi "vanilla" does not facilitate piracy in any way and they are trying to fight the abuse of their software's name.
You don't need to date your coworker to be in love with him/her, or for him/her to be in love with you.
You can have all the spine you want but it doesn't mean you have the contractual force to avoid getting screwed by a company, especially if you are at the beginning of your career. That's the reason regulation exists to balance out things and also the reason these protections don't apply if your salary is very high: if you get paid so much you supposedly already have enough contractual force without need of additional regulations.
So the lack of proper regulation allows companies to screw their employees? Paint me shocked...
Here companies are mandated by law to pay overtime and if it's after certain hours or above a certain amount it has to be paid *more* than the normal hourly rate. In my current company I was actually forbidden entry on the office on Saturday afternoon since I didn't get the proper authorisation by my manager. When I talked with him he was unwilling to give it to me since overtime on Saturday costs more than due time in the week.
Basically I never did unpaid overtime in my career, but I hope to in the future: the law protects only employees with a salary under 175K or something.
University is pretty cheap in almost all Europe. Most countries have tuitions of about 1000$ per year, which include administrative costs. More than a few countries offer completely free university to EU citizens and Finland offers free university to non-EU citizens too.
Playing soccer is exercise in and of itself, that's how. Of course, elite players work out so they can play soccer (etc) better, but the game itself is excellent exercise, hence it's a sport.
Then competitive driving is a sport too since it's excellent exercise by itself too. Of course serious racers work out so they can race better, but competitive driving itself is excellent exercise, hence it's a sport. Actually some competitive motor racing sports are among the most physically demanding sports in existence.
While I don't necessarily disagree, I still don't think many (anyone?) goes for a drive for exercise, and if they do, then I'm pretty sure a coach of some sort would tell them "You're doing it wrong. Drive for practise; play sports for exercise, stamina, cardio, strength..."
I know a lot of people who use go-karting as a way to train their stamina, cardio, strength and have fun. Other kinds of racing sports are typically much more expensive, so you are unlikely to do them exclusively for "exercising", but go-karting is relatively affordable.
Most coaches would tell you you're doing it wrong if you play soccer as exercise too and they would be actually technically right: without the proper physical preparation it's pretty easy to get injuried. Actually exercise is not the reason most people play soccer anyway: they do because they enjoy playing it, not because they want to exercise.
When race drivers go for a drive to get exercise, I'd consider driving a sport (despite the motor-sport moniker).
I'm not saying the drivers aren't fit, just that they use sports to get fit so they can drive competitively.
Which differs for other sports like soccer in which way exactly? If you don't have basic strength, agility and stamina you will not be able to play soccer effectively. Basic training comes before training with the ball or actually playing a match for soccer players too. I see no difference in the case of competitive driving.
I think you don't understand the physical fitness required. I might understand that hopping on a F1 is not feasible, but hopping on a competitive 2-stroke 125cc go-kart is. Most newcomers last a couple of laps before they are completely exhausted.
Car parking speeds are so slow that you can easily slam the brake and stop the car instantly if you need to, even with your foot far off the brake. Actually when I park my foot is always far off the brake since I have to operate the clutch.
That's only true if the capability is supposed to be used without supervision, which is never the case with current *assistive* driving or parking technologies. That's why they are called "assistive": they might help you but the ultimate responsibility of what the car does is still yours as a driver.
We have periodic checks for old vehicles but for new vehicles they are not required anymore. All relatively new vehicles sold are required to have electronic injection which measures emissions constantly.
A fugitive is the antithesis of the organisation, conference and attendees. It's a conference for and about the legal profession. As far as I'm aware, Assange has zero legal qualifications whatsoever.
He's involved in whistleblower activity detailing alleged abuses of the legal system and his status as a fugitive is likely to be linked to this more than the supposed rape accusations. But even assuming the rape accusation to be sound, his activity in whistleblowing makes him definitely relevant "for and about the legal profession".
That's like saying you should invite a convicted paedophile to your school safety talk, or a rapist to your rape counselling group. Maybe it SOUNDS good and fair and balanced, but the practicality is insanely stupid.
Why insanely stupid? It might give some insight on why these people did what they did. It's not a matter of fairness, it's a matter of having a look at the other side to try to understand. You seem to imply that merely listening to them would mean justifying them or giving them reason, which is not the case.
Criminals (and Assange is one, legally speaking, in the UK for skipping UK court bail) DO NOT get a say in how their justice system handles them, or invited to conferences about the legal profession. Reasonable outsiders make sure the law is fair and balanced for all, but the criminals themselves? No.
Talking at a conference does not in any way imply "having a say" in anything. Whoever wants to write laws fair, balanced and effective has to meet the criminals too to be able to better understand why some crimes happen, how to prevent them and/or mitigate them.
So, why not?
Not sure about how it works in the USA but in Europe source is not generics' manufacturers, it's the European Medicines Agency which mandates that generics have to be manufactured with exaclty the same quality and active component dosages than the brand reference medicine: only name, packaging and inactive components can differ (and obviously, price).
As far as I know Miele already offers its own selection of recommended products to use with its appliances and for good reason, since most cheap products can be actually crap which would lower the result's quality and most important reduce the lifetime of the appliances. Since these appliances can be sold with a 10 years warranty it can be a big issue.
It's not libel if it's true
This might be the case in the US, but in other countries the law might be different. Not sure about Japan, but countries in which proving "truth" is not a valid defence against an accusation of defamation do exist.
Is this assumption based on something more than your personal opinion? Maybe men negotiating better is the reason they are seen as confident and women negotiating not so well is the reason they are seena s bitchy. You know, "It's cultural" sounds suspiciusly like "there is a convenient excuse which shifts the blame away from the women for their subpar performance".
Everyone except millions of gamers finally able to play at home.
A lawyer is more likely to sue you period, even if you didn't do anything wrong but the lawyer begs to differ.
She (Alice, engaged with Bob) wanted his character (The character played by Bob, engaged with Alice) renamed. That's English, I guess?
Of course they might be immature, since what they might consider "sexually inappropriate" might be perfectly fine within that specific working environment, making them the problem. If you want to work as a waitress in a topless bar and consider working topless "sexually inappropriate" the problem is yours: nobody forces you to work there as nobody forces you to contribute to this specific project.
Basically "inappropriate" sometimes just means "I personally don't like it so it should not exist at all".
Even with bridges you might have to show a preliminary to-scale model which gets discussed and iterated upon. The difference is that with bridges there is a fundamental difference and a huge delta in costs between building a to-scale model and building the real thing. So you don't build a bridge that way because you don't have the same capabilities as with software.
You're still missing the point. The amount of sheet metal surrounding you doesn't determine your worth but it surely determines the outcome of a collision with something else, be it your fault or not or even without a fault at all. A pedestrian has to accept reality: if he gets hit by a car he easily risks injury or death, which means that for him being careless when crossing is much more dangerous.
Common advice for "soft" street users, be it pedestrian, cyclist or motocyclists, is to assume that everyone else is either completely incompetent or actively trying to kill you since in case of accident you dont want to be right but dead, you want to avoid the accident in the first place.
You cannot force other drivers to always pay attention or always "do their jobs": it would be nice but reality begs to differ. Being defensive is the best survival strategy.
You are missing the point. This time this pedestrian met a responsible driver who noticed him and anticipated his careless crossing but next time he might meet a distracted or intoxicated or incompetent driver and get hit: then of course the driver would be in the wrong for not "doing his job", but it would be a pretty meager consolation for the pedestrian who would be dead.
In Switzerland the law states that you have to play an "active role". You can be assisted with a drinking straw if you are unable to actually handle the drink (e.g. tetraplegic).
This is usually not a problem at all unless you have a model like the Logitec M500 which has a small button to enable "free-spinning mode" and forget to set it to click mode.