It is possible the actual murderer tipped off Hans to the location of the body. Hans then as the problem of either
a) showing the police the body, and getting a lesser sentence, but confirming himself as the murderer, or
b) saying nothing, and getting a much bigger sentence, while having most people believe he committed the murder anyway.
Fortunately, life is not a bad who-dun-it novel, and Hans undoubtedly committed the crime.
From what they showed, they are not actually switching the call, they are establishing a parallel voip call, then dropping the cellular call. This is unlikely to work seamlessly the other way around, since if you are on voip and walk out of wireless range it will take some time before a cellular call can be dialled to replace it.
Here in New Zealand we in fact do store a season's worth of energy, in a dam. It rains (and snows) in the winter, the dams fill up, we run the water out during the summer and use the electricity.
You could do the same by pumping the water up hill in the summer with solar (which is really all we do, using evaporation and condensation instead).
Forget the batteries. Just use the excess power to pump water up hill into a hydro-dam. Then you can run the hydro station for on-demand power generation.
My bank txts a one time authentication code to my phone for any transaction that involves money leaving my accounts (transfers, setting up direct debits, etc). I've always considered it an elegant solution, not foolproof, but few systems are.
Actually, over a 'vast' time period, the occurrence of any given random event (or sequence of random events) becomes statistically likely, not unlikely.
Yes, but it would only work if you made that funding available to everyone in the world, or else the data out of wherever it wasn't available would conflict with where the funding was available.
In fact you could analyse such systemic bias by comparing data sets from varying geopolitical areas (say comparing Russian data to US data).
Unfortunately you have overlooked an important point. The PC was purchased from ASUS, so the contract that is formed by that purchase was entered into and is fine. However, the EULA is between you and Microsoft, so that is a second contract offering between you and Microsoft, for which you have already paid some money (through ASUS), but have not yet accepted (by agreeing the the EULA). You can still not accept that contract, and you should get your money back.
Simple, you usually don't see the details of the licence agreement until after you have purchased the product. Until you agree to the Windows EULA you have not completed the transaction, and thus if you do not accept the terms of the license you are owed your money back - at least the part of the purchase price that was paid for the software. The bit that says you can return the software for a refund highlights that the software is supplied separate from the PC really. If it was 'all in one' then you would indeed return the whole thing and get all your money back - PC manufacturers would probably never allow that.
PC manufacturers could, in theory, avoid this by making you agree to the Windows EULA before they take your money, but they don't want to do that. I imagine Apple do exactly that, since it's all from the same vendor (but I'm only guessing, I've never purchased a mac)
Because in order to use the software installed, you had to agree to a separate license agreement with a third party who was not involved in the legal and financial transaction of buying the computer. Furthermore, that license agreement was not conveyed to you before you purchased the computer.
If your car was a Honda civic, and it was advertised as coming with AC, but when you got it, it had a sticker over the AC button that said "By pressing this button you agree to be bound into the following legal agreement with Acme AC conditioners Ltd, France. You agree that any and all disputes will be governed by the laws of France. If you do not agree with this agreement, return this AC unit for a refund." etc etc. What would your response be?
I suspect you would feel that you should be able to take it back and say "I'll take the refund". Furthermore, I suspect that if they said "We will have to charge you the cost to tow the car to and from the garage, they will keep it as long as they want, and you'll get 1/10 the price of buying the AC unit alone back" you would be a little upset.
Have you read that study? They took 17 people with collapsed lungs or emphysema, all of whom smoked on average six joints a day over a period of more than eight years and also consumed cigarettes on a daily basis for nearly 12 years. They then said that tests were unable to show which substances had caused the lung damage.
In the past reporters have been part of the 'information elite'. They have taken the job of finding out all the details they can, and then taken on the responsibility of deciding how much of that the masses get to hear. They are now just seeing that position, that control, being removed. Now they are seeing that people don't like to have half the story.
If they don't think it's right to tell all of the story, don't tell any of it. If it's OK for Joe Reporter to dig in and know all the details, why not everyone else?. They don't have to publish, they don't have to draw attention to it, but then you don't win awards by doing that, you don't get to be the person with the inside line, do you?.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that I believe this for a second, but...
It is possible the actual murderer tipped off Hans to the location of the body. Hans then as the problem of either
a) showing the police the body, and getting a lesser sentence, but confirming himself as the murderer, or
b) saying nothing, and getting a much bigger sentence, while having most people believe he committed the murder anyway.
Fortunately, life is not a bad who-dun-it novel, and Hans undoubtedly committed the crime.
From what they showed, they are not actually switching the call, they are establishing a parallel voip call, then dropping the cellular call. This is unlikely to work seamlessly the other way around, since if you are on voip and walk out of wireless range it will take some time before a cellular call can be dialled to replace it.
Here in New Zealand we in fact do store a season's worth of energy, in a dam. It rains (and snows) in the winter, the dams fill up, we run the water out during the summer and use the electricity.
You could do the same by pumping the water up hill in the summer with solar (which is really all we do, using evaporation and condensation instead).
Forget the batteries. Just use the excess power to pump water up hill into a hydro-dam. Then you can run the hydro station for on-demand power generation.
The National Bank in New Zealand
My bank txts a one time authentication code to my phone for any transaction that involves money leaving my accounts (transfers, setting up direct debits, etc). I've always considered it an elegant solution, not foolproof, but few systems are.
Actually, over a 'vast' time period, the occurrence of any given random event (or sequence of random events) becomes statistically likely, not unlikely.
Yes, but it would only work if you made that funding available to everyone in the world, or else the data out of wherever it wasn't available would conflict with where the funding was available.
In fact you could analyse such systemic bias by comparing data sets from varying geopolitical areas (say comparing Russian data to US data).
Unfortunately you have overlooked an important point. The PC was purchased from ASUS, so the contract that is formed by that purchase was entered into and is fine. However, the EULA is between you and Microsoft, so that is a second contract offering between you and Microsoft, for which you have already paid some money (through ASUS), but have not yet accepted (by agreeing the the EULA). You can still not accept that contract, and you should get your money back.
I suspect the "if applicable" part is there to allow them to argue that the law in your jurisdiction does not require a refund.
Simple, you usually don't see the details of the licence agreement until after you have purchased the product. Until you agree to the Windows EULA you have not completed the transaction, and thus if you do not accept the terms of the license you are owed your money back - at least the part of the purchase price that was paid for the software. The bit that says you can return the software for a refund highlights that the software is supplied separate from the PC really. If it was 'all in one' then you would indeed return the whole thing and get all your money back - PC manufacturers would probably never allow that.
PC manufacturers could, in theory, avoid this by making you agree to the Windows EULA before they take your money, but they don't want to do that. I imagine Apple do exactly that, since it's all from the same vendor (but I'm only guessing, I've never purchased a mac)
Because in order to use the software installed, you had to agree to a separate license agreement with a third party who was not involved in the legal and financial transaction of buying the computer. Furthermore, that license agreement was not conveyed to you before you purchased the computer. If your car was a Honda civic, and it was advertised as coming with AC, but when you got it, it had a sticker over the AC button that said "By pressing this button you agree to be bound into the following legal agreement with Acme AC conditioners Ltd, France. You agree that any and all disputes will be governed by the laws of France. If you do not agree with this agreement, return this AC unit for a refund." etc etc. What would your response be? I suspect you would feel that you should be able to take it back and say "I'll take the refund". Furthermore, I suspect that if they said "We will have to charge you the cost to tow the car to and from the garage, they will keep it as long as they want, and you'll get 1/10 the price of buying the AC unit alone back" you would be a little upset.
On the contrary, it is the environment that has changed. The game remains the same.
Have you read that study? They took 17 people with collapsed lungs or emphysema, all of whom smoked on average six joints a day over a period of more than eight years and also consumed cigarettes on a daily basis for nearly 12 years. They then said that tests were unable to show which substances had caused the lung damage.
Maybe I was being a bit harsh in the rhetoric, but I stand behind the basis. If a story is potentially harmful, *don't tell it*.
In the past reporters have been part of the 'information elite'. They have taken the job of finding out all the details they can, and then taken on the responsibility of deciding how much of that the masses get to hear. They are now just seeing that position, that control, being removed. Now they are seeing that people don't like to have half the story.
If they don't think it's right to tell all of the story, don't tell any of it. If it's OK for Joe Reporter to dig in and know all the details, why not everyone else?. They don't have to publish, they don't have to draw attention to it, but then you don't win awards by doing that, you don't get to be the person with the inside line, do you?.
Welcome to the internet, the great leveller.