Not to mention that if US companies are supposed to "patriotically" enable and support access to encrypted communications to US officials the same goes for other countries. I'm sure he would not be ok at all with China stating that all Chinese hardware manufacturers should "patriotically" implement some solution to allow the Chinese government access.
It might not make a difference to you but it evidently made a difference for Sony, otherwise they would have just publicised the correct amount. Since Sony decided to publicise a higher amount it's clear they somehow believed the correct amount was too low for the press release.
As far as I know it's impossible to do in KSP. This is due to KSP not simulating gravitation effects from multiple bodies: you get only the gravitation effect from a single celestial body depending on which "sphere of influence" you are in. This is also why you don't have Lagrange points in KSP.
Why the false dichotomy? You can have a reduction in both kinds of incidents simply by having the correct yellow light duration. 3 seconds is even too short unless we're talking about a very low speed residential road: normal roads should have around 5 seconds yellow duration to accommodate for reaction time and stop distance with normal braking force.
But it gets to use an English term in misleading way, which is good to point out. An English speaker familiar with the proper meaning of "peace" would likely misunderstand.
It would be disingenuos to suggest that whoever gets primarily impacted matters. You fight the issue no matter the victim, especially when the issue is supposedly about inequality.
In Italy it is exactly as you explained for Europe: there are 3 levels of judgement and the sentence is not definitive until either the appeal is not filed in due time or the last level is reached. The first appeal is basically a new process within the scope of the appealed matters: in the second and last appeal evidence cannot be re-examined, only wheter the law was followed correctly, but if the court finds issues it can rule than the whole trial needs to be re-done from scratch...
If you're really that worried the most likely correct answer is the Swiss solution: full mandatory nuclear shelter availability for all residents. Either you have to build your own nuclear shelter under your home or you have to pay a tax to use one of the common bunkers.
I doubt they fear lawsuit from the counterfeiters, but a customer which ends up with a device bricked due to a driver being explicitly engineered to sabotage it is another story.
Outdated laws have nothing to do with this issue, at least according to the article:
The publishers base part of their claim on a German online copyright law that came into effect last August, which gave publishers the exclusive right to the commercial use of their content and parts thereof, except in the case of single words or small text snippets.
That's actually true for most laws: rule-book slowdown is based on the fact that without the due "flexibility" most laws/rules interpreted literally with utmost zeal would make the system stop working.
It might be a full-blown U2 album but in my opinion is still crap. Anyway automatic downloads for things I have purchased are fine. Automatic downloads for things someone else thinks I might like are not. Even Sony did get it right and in the PS4 you have separate option for purchased content (free stuff included) and "featured content". Apple could do just that and offer the additional option to automatically download "featured content" they think you might like, maybe even trying to match the user's taste.
It' not something that uncommon, Italy has basically the same situation: truth can be used as defense only in very specific cases. The idea is protecting "honourability", so whether you are telling the truth or not doesn't matter. The fundamental question is whether your main intent is to harm someone's honourability, no matter the validity of your claims.
The problem is that privileged access to the market is exactly how the system was meant to work.
A taxi driver in most of the countries involved is required to buy a license which costs as high as $250'000, which the taxi driver is usually able to recoup only after 15 years of activity. No sane person would invest that much money (often requiring to get a loan) without some guarantee that they will be able to recoup and profit from it, which is what the regulated access to the market was supposed to do.
Now most municipalities would gladly let Uber or other private companies operate, but taxi drivers paid them a lot of money to get the licenses supposed to protect them from the competition which Uber is doing... many of them have not recouped their investment yet and if Uber is allowed to operate most likely never will.
Some practices are technically legal, but it doesn't mean they should. In some cases the laws are simply lacking and new ones should be defined (especially true in technology). It might also be that some practices are technically legal through loopholes which allow you to do something legally in the letter of the law even if against the spirit. In other cases the laws are actually made with the required loopholes, a blatant example defining some practices which are clearly torture as not being torture to be able to "legally" employ them.
Is that 30% success rate actually meant to be the threshold to pass the test? From the article on Wikipedia it simply looks like a prediction about how AIs in the future will fare:
Turing predicted that machines would eventually be able to pass the test; in fact, he estimated that by the year 2000, machines with 10 GB of storage would be able to fool 30% of human judges in a five-minute test, and that people would no longer consider the phrase "thinking machine" contradictory.
It's true that today's engines are much more complex, but this also means they are much more sophisticate: today all new cars have to comply with very strict emission and fuel efficiency standards, which means you basically can't do without electronic fuel injection.
His strategy is to remove impunity from their actions. It should happen through prosecution of unneded violence, but sadly this is not the case. He might also be correct: unneeded violence is much more unlikely from if that would put the "aggressor" in danger too. As they say: "if you want peace, prepare for war."
Can't you "disperse" the concentrated light on more panels once it reaches the ground station to avoid the 1.1 "suns" limit? Another way might be to avoid photovoltaic panels and use the concentrated light to boil water.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that if US companies are supposed to "patriotically" enable and support access to encrypted communications to US officials the same goes for other countries. I'm sure he would not be ok at all with China stating that all Chinese hardware manufacturers should "patriotically" implement some solution to allow the Chinese government access.
This is easy to say when the target of the anger is somebody else.
I somehow doubt that the North Korean regime would react sympathetically.
What it basically says is that girls and boys can't work together, and it doesn't teach guys to work as coworkers with women.
It also doesn't teach girls to work as coworkers with men.
It might not make a difference to you but it evidently made a difference for Sony, otherwise they would have just publicised the correct amount. Since Sony decided to publicise a higher amount it's clear they somehow believed the correct amount was too low for the press release.
As far as I know it's impossible to do in KSP. This is due to KSP not simulating gravitation effects from multiple bodies: you get only the gravitation effect from a single celestial body depending on which "sphere of influence" you are in. This is also why you don't have Lagrange points in KSP.
Why the false dichotomy? You can have a reduction in both kinds of incidents simply by having the correct yellow light duration. 3 seconds is even too short unless we're talking about a very low speed residential road: normal roads should have around 5 seconds yellow duration to accommodate for reaction time and stop distance with normal braking force.
But it gets to use an English term in misleading way, which is good to point out. An English speaker familiar with the proper meaning of "peace" would likely misunderstand.
It's also true that agreeing with a clause doesn't make it automatically enforceable: it could still be declared null and void.
It would be disingenuos to suggest that whoever gets primarily impacted matters. You fight the issue no matter the victim, especially when the issue is supposedly about inequality.
In Italy it is exactly as you explained for Europe: there are 3 levels of judgement and the sentence is not definitive until either the appeal is not filed in due time or the last level is reached. The first appeal is basically a new process within the scope of the appealed matters: in the second and last appeal evidence cannot be re-examined, only wheter the law was followed correctly, but if the court finds issues it can rule than the whole trial needs to be re-done from scratch...
If you're really that worried the most likely correct answer is the Swiss solution: full mandatory nuclear shelter availability for all residents. Either you have to build your own nuclear shelter under your home or you have to pay a tax to use one of the common bunkers.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/bunkers-for-all/995134
I doubt they fear lawsuit from the counterfeiters, but a customer which ends up with a device bricked due to a driver being explicitly engineered to sabotage it is another story.
The publishers base part of their claim on a German online copyright law that came into effect last August, which gave publishers the exclusive right to the commercial use of their content and parts thereof, except in the case of single words or small text snippets.
That's actually true for most laws: rule-book slowdown is based on the fact that without the due "flexibility" most laws/rules interpreted literally with utmost zeal would make the system stop working.
It might be a full-blown U2 album but in my opinion is still crap. Anyway automatic downloads for things I have purchased are fine. Automatic downloads for things someone else thinks I might like are not. Even Sony did get it right and in the PS4 you have separate option for purchased content (free stuff included) and "featured content". Apple could do just that and offer the additional option to automatically download "featured content" they think you might like, maybe even trying to match the user's taste.
It' not something that uncommon, Italy has basically the same situation: truth can be used as defense only in very specific cases. The idea is protecting "honourability", so whether you are telling the truth or not doesn't matter. The fundamental question is whether your main intent is to harm someone's honourability, no matter the validity of your claims.
The problem is that privileged access to the market is exactly how the system was meant to work.
A taxi driver in most of the countries involved is required to buy a license which costs as high as $250'000, which the taxi driver is usually able to recoup only after 15 years of activity. No sane person would invest that much money (often requiring to get a loan) without some guarantee that they will be able to recoup and profit from it, which is what the regulated access to the market was supposed to do.
Now most municipalities would gladly let Uber or other private companies operate, but taxi drivers paid them a lot of money to get the licenses supposed to protect them from the competition which Uber is doing... many of them have not recouped their investment yet and if Uber is allowed to operate most likely never will.
Some practices are technically legal, but it doesn't mean they should. In some cases the laws are simply lacking and new ones should be defined (especially true in technology). It might also be that some practices are technically legal through loopholes which allow you to do something legally in the letter of the law even if against the spirit. In other cases the laws are actually made with the required loopholes, a blatant example defining some practices which are clearly torture as not being torture to be able to "legally" employ them.
Turing predicted that machines would eventually be able to pass the test; in fact, he estimated that by the year 2000, machines with 10 GB of storage would be able to fool 30% of human judges in a five-minute test, and that people would no longer consider the phrase "thinking machine" contradictory.
It's true that today's engines are much more complex, but this also means they are much more sophisticate: today all new cars have to comply with very strict emission and fuel efficiency standards, which means you basically can't do without electronic fuel injection.
His strategy is to remove impunity from their actions. It should happen through prosecution of unneded violence, but sadly this is not the case. He might also be correct: unneeded violence is much more unlikely from if that would put the "aggressor" in danger too. As they say: "if you want peace, prepare for war."
Gnome?
Can't you "disperse" the concentrated light on more panels once it reaches the ground station to avoid the 1.1 "suns" limit? Another way might be to avoid photovoltaic panels and use the concentrated light to boil water.
In this cause there she has pleaded her case. There has been no evidence against it. Therefore her statements can be taken as fact.
In this case there is no cause at all, or did I miss the lawsuit, her testimony under penalty of perjury and the subsequent cross-examination?