That may be true purely in terms of number of accidents on straight roads with long lines of sight. However, the amount of damage caused in a crash DOES go up exponentially with speed.
You stand a fairly good chance of surviving even a head-on collision at 55 MPH. You'll have a lot of bruises, some broken bones, possibly some back damage, etc. but you'll probably live. On the other hand, hit that same bridge pillar or concrete barricade at 90 MPH, will leave the first responders wondering how much of you they can shovel into the bag and how much they just have to hose off the road after they drag what's left of your car off it.
This is what happens in a 120MPH crash. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.c... It's a bit faster than your 'safer' 90 but your 90 will still put the engine block squarely in the passenger cabin and burst your aorta as soon as the car starts decelerating.
This is 120KM/H or 75 MPH. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... , well below your 90 but still almost universally fatal in a head-on.
They haven't been revoked by these major software developers (essentially destroyed as a CA) because they were hacked. They were kiled because they didn't tell anyone about it when they found the invalid certificate and revoked it themselves. It's the failure to come clean and say 'we were hacked, here's what was compromised, and here's how we fixed it.'
They lost thier entire business instead of getting some bad PR because they tried to cover it up and assumptions are that next time they are hacked, we might never hear about it while someone quietly impersonates a trusted entity for years. Comodo is still around in spite of being hacked because they handled the incident openly.
That type of bankruptcy (there are a few), however, is also an indication to the rest of the world (investors, employees, customers) that this entity does not honor its obligations. If you want to destroy any trust people used to have in you or your business then bankruptcy is a fast way to do that because it basically amounts to stealing some portion of whatever it was you owed people that you couldn't pay them.
That is why many lawmakers didn't want to force the "big 3" go to bankruptcy: some businesses work their way back up while others just delay their collapse. A big chunk of our economy looking like it is collapsing might cause people to buy Toyotas because they will almost certainly be around until the end of their warranty period.
Really? They *must* reimburse you? And what happens if they say that's covered under your paycheck? I think your entitlement streak is a bit too big.
So is paper, pens, your work PC, the gasoline. You must also cover your share of the building lease and maintenance costs. Do you feel like working at that place?
An employee paycheck is payment for *work done* unless otherwise stipulated. Any payment for other things *MUST* be documented as such on your pay stub and their accounting for tax purposes. Employers are expected to provide the things *they dictate* you use for their business. That's not to say you can't take business calls on your personal cell phone as a convenience, but if an *employer* (contractors are paid by clients and operate under completely different rules) requires you to be contactable while outside their premesis then they generally are expected to pay for a method of contacting you. This article, however, is about a state reassessing which employees really need to be contactable 24/7.
I said I hope they would do that. I never said I thought it was especially likely. I would imagine the various publishers they license from might throw a tantrum over DRM removal and the legal team will block that during the shutdown process.
However, like I said, STEAM copy protection has been repeatedly cracked and if it shuts down it will probably be already cracked or a crack will follow soon after the announcement.
Oh, and you can bet a blood test on the side of the road won't meet HIPAA requirements for electronic medical records
Taking blood is not rocket science. It is quite easy to setup a truck with the appropriate facilities for handling blood samples.
He's referring to legal requirements to protect medical records from unauthorized disclosure in the USA. They have little to do with the safety concerns I think you might be thinking about. However, a BAC test truck can meet these requirements just as easily as the mobile mammogram clinics that the hospital I work at operates.
You can create disc backups of your STEAM games and there is a crack STEAM that will avoid the need to have STEAM's servers active.
With only as much effort as cracking a single game's individual DRM, you can crack all your STEAM games if STEAM ever goes under (though I'd hope they'll release their own fix for that impending DRM issue while they are in bankruptcy proceedings). I like STEAM because I don't have to go around finding NoCD patches for every game I buy or have to repair my internet connection before I can play single-player games (I have never bought a game with this kind of DRM that had a single-player mode).
There are no issues with dialing numbers on the Android. You are perfectly able to use an Android phone as if it were an analog telephone handset and this bug does not affect that capability at all.
Seems reasonable, if incredibly unlikely. If the apropriate papers arent filed to transfer the lein to the new bank owner corporation then the debt dies with the old bank because they ceased to exist and cannot collect (a lender cannot refuse to accept payments made or the loan is immediately forgiven and if nobody is there to take the check then they obviously aren't accepting any payments he would send). The smaller business they were talking about wouldn't have been an actual bank and probably sold off all its loans individually or in packages rather than selling off the company itself to a single buyer. If they forgot to transfer it before the company died then he would be free and clear on that debt.
What if you bought a CD, made one copy of it, and then took that to the student union (or any other gathering place) and just left it, sitting in a box with a sign that says "free CD", like a free puppies sign or something?
You violated copyright law by copying the CD for the purpose of distributing it.
If no one takes it, have you committed a crime by leaving it there, available for theft?
Yes, again, not for leaving them there to be stolen but for creating the copy for the purpose of willingly giving it to others.
What if you make 20 copies and do the same thing? It seems like even if no one takes them, it shouldn't be legal. However, it certainly doesn't seem like you should have to pay a bunch of cash to the RIAA, since none were taken.
Quantity doesn't matter for the purposes of determining guilt, just for the "counts" you would be found guilty of.
Finally, what if you did this, then came back a week later and the box was gone? If the staff claim they threw the CDs into the furnace and they don't know if any were missing at the time, what's your punishment, if any? You've no idea how many were taken, or if any were at all. Should you get off scott free?
Once again, the infriging act is the copying with the intent to permit others to take them as those copies are not covered under fair use laws.
However, I should point out that all of the above are illegal only because at some point you decided to create a copy of the song with the purpose of sending it to other people and NOT because you made it possible for them to take it. If, for example, you create a copy of all your CDs and forget to lock your door one day then you are not guilty of copyright infringement no matter how many of your CDs burnt for personal use people walk into your house and take. You are also not guilty of copyright infringement if someone you invite into your house makes a copy of your CDs without your assistance or knowledge.
What would this mean in practical terms? A burden of proof for the RIAA that this INDIVIDUAL placed copyrighted material in this folder for the purpose of sharing it with others. If they could somehow prove intent to distribute then they can easily make the claim that the copy being made was not part of "fair use". Otherwise the user is simply exercising their fair-use right to make personal backup copies of copyrighted material they purchased.
That, my friend, depends on whether its the standards or the publications themselves that are plural;)
I'll admit that its a bit of a stretch but you have to love English for things like that. I don't think many other languages will let you change the meaning of a sentence to make it fit a spelling error. Why couldn't someplace with a real language have colonized the East Coast of N. Amrerica? Personally, I blame the current state of English on the poets.
Don't worry about it tho. I find it entertaining even if it catches some mods as off-topic.
My apologies for that, apparently the AK-47 has a wide variety of estimated effective ranges and somehow I managed to find the shortest one though I have found multiple sources that cite that particular number. Personally, my shooting has been done with the smaller sport rifle cartridges like.30-30, which I like for having low cost, shorter barrel lengths for easier aim around brush, and a tendency not to cause damage to as much meat as the larger calibers. However, I used the AK-47 in the example because of its worldwide popularity (and, by extension, the 7.62 cartridge they fire). I do think though that reliably hitting human-size targets at 500m would only be considered possible with one of the variants sporting a significantly longer barrel since though the ranges vary, I have never seen it estimated at more than 400m maximum
It is, however, important to note that ballistic drop rate is not linear (1200m is not twice as much drop as 600m). It is negative for a short time, almost horizontal through what is generally considered its ideal range, and then increases exponentially as the bullet loses more velocity and is effected by gravity for a larger time per distance traveled. Upward angles significantly decrease the range of a firearm by introducing gravitational force as a reduction to velocity in addition to wind resistance. I would still consider hitting a blimp at travel altitude with anything short of a high-powered rifle (approximately.50 cal and up) to be impressive unless you happened to be standing right under it. Distance and angle of fire have an exponential effect on chances of hitting a target while distance has a linear effect on its size in a targeting mechanism and angle has no effect on it at all. That is why few people (myself included) are capable of true long-range shooting: anyone can pull a trigger while a non-moving target is in the sights, its realizing that the bullet doesn't necessarily go where the sights are pointing (its between that and most people not being able to perform trigonometry and calculus mentally to figure windage and drop) that kills accuracy beyond 500yds.
The second is a bit harder, but sort of related to #1. There are people out there (in most areas of the globe) who wouldn't mind taking potshots at an airship. It could be a drunk hillbilly who is playing with his new 30/06, or someone who has a RPG and is hoping to knock the thing out of the air completely. Oddly enough (and I have little or no aerospace expertise), I wonder if, even with major damage from a missile hit, a well engineered airship still can land gracefully (assuming the gondola isn't what is damaged.) Could an airship fly high enough so the chance of getting hit by ground fire be minimized?
For the.30/06 its like shooting a parachute with a pistol. Enough holes would be dangerous but the helium bags aren't under enough pressure to pop like a balloon and a hole roughly 1/3 in. in diameter isn't going to be enough to bring it down before a patch can be made. Also, with the exception of some serious firepower like the.50 and.75 caliber rifles, bullets don't actually travel too far before dropping. Your chances of hitting a blimp with a hunting rifle or an AK when its in the air are practically nonexistent outside of takeoff or landing. The maximum effective range of an AK-47 (the area at which you could expect to hit a large target firing horizontally, though I think a blimp is a bit above the large target in this standard) is generally estimated around 250m. add the distance you are away from it and account for the upward angle you're firing at and I believe it'd be quite impressive to to hit a blimp with small-arms fire.
As far as the RPG goes, I'm not sure what we could hope for there... military aircraft don't stand up so well to direct RPG hits. Commercial aircraft simply can't be designed for that particular level of abuse.
They may be able to squeak out some profit carrying cargo internationally, where their competition isn't trains (for large amounts of cargo long distances) and trucks (smaller amounts and shorter distances), but instead ships (large amounts of cargo slowly) and planes (small amounts of cargo quickly and expensively).
If you'd bother to check, then you'd realize that winds are quite reliable along the ocean and tend to form very predictable patterns that at the higher altitudes would likely push a dirigible along at a respectable pace compared to most large ships at the cost of little or no fuel for most of the trip. You would obviously never be able to carry cargo from lets say the E. US to Africa but you could conceivably transport it from the E. US to Europe, Europe to Africa, Africa to US/Central America with very low costs along with a similar route through the W. US, S. Americas, and E. Asia. I don't believe it would be viable, however, for overland transport and I'm just not sure if there is enough of a market to support a fairly slow and destination-limited transportation method such as this but it could very well become a much less expensive method of transportation within some specific routes.
I'm not saying it'll ever meet with the the success of the rail system but I wouldn't be quite so quick to shoot the idea down.
And that's the key - they didn't obtain a signed contract did they?
No, they obtained a license agreement distributed by the author(s) with the software. Click-to-install license agreements are legally binding contracts between the software distributor and user. That ruling has been upheld in courts already and only ruled as unenforceable (though not consistently so) in cases where the user was unable to review those terms prior to finalization of the sale.
If you know of some case law that I missed on this issue I'd appreciate it though.
As I said, if someone were going to post one short sentence, then it could at least be one properly spelled sentence. Once you make it above the magic 0% mark and use words which have the intended meaning, even if they are not grammatically correct, then I personally believe you've accomplished the minimum standard for an Internet message board in spite of needing the support of a serious editorial staff before making legitimate publications. Use of secondly, however, is by most publication's standards bad form, but not grammatically incorrect. Maintaining the part of speech, or even the inclusion of all steps as part of the numbering scheme, is not grammatically required in a textually numbered list in paragraph form.
You do, however, have my apologies for forgetting the apostrophe in "it's". that one has always given me, and many other English-speakers trouble.
First, its duels and not duals. If you only post one short sentence then you could at least spell it correctly.
Secondly, duels were slightly more prone to cheating than the American legal system. When I say slightly, I mean by an infinitesimal amount. The real problem was that cheating in a duel were much more desirable and not subject to later remedy as there wasn't much of an appeals process available in the dueling system.
However, I would venture to guess there were far fewer frivolous duels than lawsuits.
A copyright holder can't impose conditions on the distribution of his work on a whim - either the work is copyrighted, or it is in the public domain. The only choice to be made on a whim is a binary one. Anything more detailed than that falls under the heading of licensing, which is a different matter entirely.
The copyright holder in this case says: "Nobody can distribute this or create derivative works without my permission" (the exact same thing proprietary code writers do)
Then, and this is the one that seems to cause confusion, they say right in the EULA that B) "Everyone has my permission to use this code and create derivative works as long as you distribute the source code free of cost for anything you make from it... (other conditions follow, but that is the most relevant here)"
Nothing complex or legally untested there. The copyright owner simply decided to skip the usual negotiations for rights to create derivative works and include the terms of distribution right in the EULA. If a company were to walk up to each of the code owners and receive the same terms in the form of a signed contract then nothing would have changed, nobody would be confused, but it would simply take longer to get the license and cause inconvenience to the owners.
Somehow I'm just not grasping the concept here... How do you come to the conclusion that pieces of scrap metal and/or used replacement parts are ever going to hold more value than a functioning automobile?
Value is based on 3 things: supply, demand, and utility. When you recycle, you completely eliminate any utility of the end product by reducing it to its individual components (steel, plastic, glass, etc). If those components are worth as much as the end product then that would mean that the end product must be no more useful than the materials in it. Until a vehicle costs nearly as much to repair as it does to recycle it and purchase another one (used or new), it still holds more value than its component materials so the manufacturer will be unable to pay you more for it than another driver.
Its a simple supply/demand relationship that causes cars to lose so much of their value independently of their utility. Americans like bigger, better, shinier, newer cars every 5 years or so and there is an inherent risk in purchasing a vehicle without any kind of guarantee other than "you just saw it drive a few miles". Between the abundant supply of 5-10 year old vehicles and the potential risk associated with their purchase, you see buyers willing and able to pay much less for the used cars than their remaining useful life would indicate. If you want to see a rise in the price of your used car then you would have to (collectively) stop flooding the market with them when they still have decades of use left.
Exactly what is the beneficial difference between what you're describing and a lease, where the car is simply sold or re-leased by the manufacturer after a predetermined time?
Did you ever use NT 3.51? 4.0? 2000? They were terrible. XP is the first MS OS that has actually stayed stable for me for more than a few days. I still get bluescreens, but hey, it is a MS product. The "professional" line was worthless in a variety of ways.
I think you're problem was that you are judging an OS based on a function it was never supposed to serve and using software that was never designed to run on it. You shouldn't judge Win2k for not being able to run Doom, Warcraft, [insert your favorite app that worked perfectly on Windows 98 here], any more than you can judge Win95 for being unable to join a domain (later patches "fixed" this, but even then it had issues).
The NT line in its entirety was extremely good for what it was intended to do. If you kept up with the patches and firewalled it properly, it was relatively secure. If you ran applications designed to be run on the NT line (absolutely nothing in the consumer market at that time) it was also extremely stable. The vast majority of reliability issues for NT came when you attempted to run applications developed for the DOS based systems though sometime around SP3 of Win 2k, these issues lessened significantly and 2k turned into a passable replacement for a home desktop though few outside of IT had any knowledge of it.
Slashdot Mirror
That may be true purely in terms of number of accidents on straight roads with long lines of sight. However, the amount of damage caused in a crash DOES go up exponentially with speed. You stand a fairly good chance of surviving even a head-on collision at 55 MPH. You'll have a lot of bruises, some broken bones, possibly some back damage, etc. but you'll probably live. On the other hand, hit that same bridge pillar or concrete barricade at 90 MPH, will leave the first responders wondering how much of you they can shovel into the bag and how much they just have to hose off the road after they drag what's left of your car off it. This is what happens in a 120MPH crash. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.c... It's a bit faster than your 'safer' 90 but your 90 will still put the engine block squarely in the passenger cabin and burst your aorta as soon as the car starts decelerating. This is 120KM/H or 75 MPH. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... , well below your 90 but still almost universally fatal in a head-on.
For some reason those same people nod and claim to understand the buggy whip analogy perfectly, though.
They haven't been revoked by these major software developers (essentially destroyed as a CA) because they were hacked. They were kiled because they didn't tell anyone about it when they found the invalid certificate and revoked it themselves. It's the failure to come clean and say 'we were hacked, here's what was compromised, and here's how we fixed it.' They lost thier entire business instead of getting some bad PR because they tried to cover it up and assumptions are that next time they are hacked, we might never hear about it while someone quietly impersonates a trusted entity for years. Comodo is still around in spite of being hacked because they handled the incident openly.
That is why many lawmakers didn't want to force the "big 3" go to bankruptcy: some businesses work their way back up while others just delay their collapse. A big chunk of our economy looking like it is collapsing might cause people to buy Toyotas because they will almost certainly be around until the end of their warranty period.
Really? They *must* reimburse you? And what happens if they say that's covered under your paycheck? I think your entitlement streak is a bit too big.
So is paper, pens, your work PC, the gasoline. You must also cover your share of the building lease and maintenance costs. Do you feel like working at that place?
An employee paycheck is payment for *work done* unless otherwise stipulated. Any payment for other things *MUST* be documented as such on your pay stub and their accounting for tax purposes. Employers are expected to provide the things *they dictate* you use for their business. That's not to say you can't take business calls on your personal cell phone as a convenience, but if an *employer* (contractors are paid by clients and operate under completely different rules) requires you to be contactable while outside their premesis then they generally are expected to pay for a method of contacting you. This article, however, is about a state reassessing which employees really need to be contactable 24/7.
I said I hope they would do that. I never said I thought it was especially likely. I would imagine the various publishers they license from might throw a tantrum over DRM removal and the legal team will block that during the shutdown process. However, like I said, STEAM copy protection has been repeatedly cracked and if it shuts down it will probably be already cracked or a crack will follow soon after the announcement.
Oh, and you can bet a blood test on the side of the road won't meet HIPAA requirements for electronic medical records
Taking blood is not rocket science. It is quite easy to setup a truck with the appropriate facilities for handling blood samples.
He's referring to legal requirements to protect medical records from unauthorized disclosure in the USA. They have little to do with the safety concerns I think you might be thinking about. However, a BAC test truck can meet these requirements just as easily as the mobile mammogram clinics that the hospital I work at operates.
You can create disc backups of your STEAM games and there is a crack STEAM that will avoid the need to have STEAM's servers active. With only as much effort as cracking a single game's individual DRM, you can crack all your STEAM games if STEAM ever goes under (though I'd hope they'll release their own fix for that impending DRM issue while they are in bankruptcy proceedings). I like STEAM because I don't have to go around finding NoCD patches for every game I buy or have to repair my internet connection before I can play single-player games (I have never bought a game with this kind of DRM that had a single-player mode).
There are no issues with dialing numbers on the Android. You are perfectly able to use an Android phone as if it were an analog telephone handset and this bug does not affect that capability at all.
Seems reasonable, if incredibly unlikely. If the apropriate papers arent filed to transfer the lein to the new bank owner corporation then the debt dies with the old bank because they ceased to exist and cannot collect (a lender cannot refuse to accept payments made or the loan is immediately forgiven and if nobody is there to take the check then they obviously aren't accepting any payments he would send). The smaller business they were talking about wouldn't have been an actual bank and probably sold off all its loans individually or in packages rather than selling off the company itself to a single buyer. If they forgot to transfer it before the company died then he would be free and clear on that debt.
There should be an award of some kind for saying someting this geeky.
What if you bought a CD, made one copy of it, and then took that to the student union (or any other gathering place) and just left it, sitting in a box with a sign that says "free CD", like a free puppies sign or something?
You violated copyright law by copying the CD for the purpose of distributing it.
If no one takes it, have you committed a crime by leaving it there, available for theft?
Yes, again, not for leaving them there to be stolen but for creating the copy for the purpose of willingly giving it to others.
What if you make 20 copies and do the same thing? It seems like even if no one takes them, it shouldn't be legal. However, it certainly doesn't seem like you should have to pay a bunch of cash to the RIAA, since none were taken.
Quantity doesn't matter for the purposes of determining guilt, just for the "counts" you would be found guilty of.
Finally, what if you did this, then came back a week later and the box was gone? If the staff claim they threw the CDs into the furnace and they don't know if any were missing at the time, what's your punishment, if any? You've no idea how many were taken, or if any were at all. Should you get off scott free?
Once again, the infriging act is the copying with the intent to permit others to take them as those copies are not covered under fair use laws.
However, I should point out that all of the above are illegal only because at some point you decided to create a copy of the song with the purpose of sending it to other people and NOT because you made it possible for them to take it. If, for example, you create a copy of all your CDs and forget to lock your door one day then you are not guilty of copyright infringement no matter how many of your CDs burnt for personal use people walk into your house and take. You are also not guilty of copyright infringement if someone you invite into your house makes a copy of your CDs without your assistance or knowledge.
What would this mean in practical terms? A burden of proof for the RIAA that this INDIVIDUAL placed copyrighted material in this folder for the purpose of sharing it with others. If they could somehow prove intent to distribute then they can easily make the claim that the copy being made was not part of "fair use". Otherwise the user is simply exercising their fair-use right to make personal backup copies of copyrighted material they purchased.
It's "by most publications' standards".
That, my friend, depends on whether its the standards or the publications themselves that are plural ;)
I'll admit that its a bit of a stretch but you have to love English for things like that. I don't think many other languages will let you change the meaning of a sentence to make it fit a spelling error. Why couldn't someplace with a real language have colonized the East Coast of N. Amrerica? Personally, I blame the current state of English on the poets.
Don't worry about it tho. I find it entertaining even if it catches some mods as off-topic.
My apologies for that, apparently the AK-47 has a wide variety of estimated effective ranges and somehow I managed to find the shortest one though I have found multiple sources that cite that particular number. Personally, my shooting has been done with the smaller sport rifle cartridges like .30-30, which I like for having low cost, shorter barrel lengths for easier aim around brush, and a tendency not to cause damage to as much meat as the larger calibers. However, I used the AK-47 in the example because of its worldwide popularity (and, by extension, the 7.62 cartridge they fire). I do think though that reliably hitting human-size targets at 500m would only be considered possible with one of the variants sporting a significantly longer barrel since though the ranges vary, I have never seen it estimated at more than 400m maximum
It is, however, important to note that ballistic drop rate is not linear (1200m is not twice as much drop as 600m). It is negative for a short time, almost horizontal through what is generally considered its ideal range, and then increases exponentially as the bullet loses more velocity and is effected by gravity for a larger time per distance traveled. Upward angles significantly decrease the range of a firearm by introducing gravitational force as a reduction to velocity in addition to wind resistance. I would still consider hitting a blimp at travel altitude with anything short of a high-powered rifle (approximately .50 cal and up) to be impressive unless you happened to be standing right under it. Distance and angle of fire have an exponential effect on chances of hitting a target while distance has a linear effect on its size in a targeting mechanism and angle has no effect on it at all. That is why few people (myself included) are capable of true long-range shooting: anyone can pull a trigger while a non-moving target is in the sights, its realizing that the bullet doesn't necessarily go where the sights are pointing (its between that and most people not being able to perform trigonometry and calculus mentally to figure windage and drop) that kills accuracy beyond 500yds.
The second is a bit harder, but sort of related to #1. There are people out there (in most areas of the globe) who wouldn't mind taking potshots at an airship. It could be a drunk hillbilly who is playing with his new 30/06, or someone who has a RPG and is hoping to knock the thing out of the air completely. Oddly enough (and I have little or no aerospace expertise), I wonder if, even with major damage from a missile hit, a well engineered airship still can land gracefully (assuming the gondola isn't what is damaged.) Could an airship fly high enough so the chance of getting hit by ground fire be minimized?
For the .30/06 its like shooting a parachute with a pistol. Enough holes would be dangerous but the helium bags aren't under enough pressure to pop like a balloon and a hole roughly 1/3 in. in diameter isn't going to be enough to bring it down before a patch can be made. Also, with the exception of some serious firepower like the .50 and .75 caliber rifles, bullets don't actually travel too far before dropping. Your chances of hitting a blimp with a hunting rifle or an AK when its in the air are practically nonexistent outside of takeoff or landing. The maximum effective range of an AK-47 (the area at which you could expect to hit a large target firing horizontally, though I think a blimp is a bit above the large target in this standard) is generally estimated around 250m. add the distance you are away from it and account for the upward angle you're firing at and I believe it'd be quite impressive to to hit a blimp with small-arms fire.
As far as the RPG goes, I'm not sure what we could hope for there... military aircraft don't stand up so well to direct RPG hits. Commercial aircraft simply can't be designed for that particular level of abuse.
They may be able to squeak out some profit carrying cargo internationally, where their competition isn't trains (for large amounts of cargo long distances) and trucks (smaller amounts and shorter distances), but instead ships (large amounts of cargo slowly) and planes (small amounts of cargo quickly and expensively).
If you'd bother to check, then you'd realize that winds are quite reliable along the ocean and tend to form very predictable patterns that at the higher altitudes would likely push a dirigible along at a respectable pace compared to most large ships at the cost of little or no fuel for most of the trip. You would obviously never be able to carry cargo from lets say the E. US to Africa but you could conceivably transport it from the E. US to Europe, Europe to Africa, Africa to US/Central America with very low costs along with a similar route through the W. US, S. Americas, and E. Asia. I don't believe it would be viable, however, for overland transport and I'm just not sure if there is enough of a market to support a fairly slow and destination-limited transportation method such as this but it could very well become a much less expensive method of transportation within some specific routes.
I'm not saying it'll ever meet with the the success of the rail system but I wouldn't be quite so quick to shoot the idea down.
And that's the key - they didn't obtain a signed contract did they?
No, they obtained a license agreement distributed by the author(s) with the software. Click-to-install license agreements are legally binding contracts between the software distributor and user. That ruling has been upheld in courts already and only ruled as unenforceable (though not consistently so) in cases where the user was unable to review those terms prior to finalization of the sale.
If you know of some case law that I missed on this issue I'd appreciate it though.
You forgot "duel were"
As I said, if someone were going to post one short sentence, then it could at least be one properly spelled sentence. Once you make it above the magic 0% mark and use words which have the intended meaning, even if they are not grammatically correct, then I personally believe you've accomplished the minimum standard for an Internet message board in spite of needing the support of a serious editorial staff before making legitimate publications. Use of secondly, however, is by most publication's standards bad form, but not grammatically incorrect. Maintaining the part of speech, or even the inclusion of all steps as part of the numbering scheme, is not grammatically required in a textually numbered list in paragraph form.
You do, however, have my apologies for forgetting the apostrophe in "it's". that one has always given me, and many other English-speakers trouble.
And for this we gave up duals?
First, its duels and not duals. If you only post one short sentence then you could at least spell it correctly.
Secondly, duels were slightly more prone to cheating than the American legal system. When I say slightly, I mean by an infinitesimal amount. The real problem was that cheating in a duel were much more desirable and not subject to later remedy as there wasn't much of an appeals process available in the dueling system.
However, I would venture to guess there were far fewer frivolous duels than lawsuits.
A copyright holder can't impose conditions on the distribution of his work on a whim - either the work is copyrighted, or it is in the public domain. The only choice to be made on a whim is a binary one. Anything more detailed than that falls under the heading of licensing, which is a different matter entirely.
The copyright holder in this case says: "Nobody can distribute this or create derivative works without my permission" (the exact same thing proprietary code writers do)
Then, and this is the one that seems to cause confusion, they say right in the EULA that B) "Everyone has my permission to use this code and create derivative works as long as you distribute the source code free of cost for anything you make from it... (other conditions follow, but that is the most relevant here)"
Nothing complex or legally untested there. The copyright owner simply decided to skip the usual negotiations for rights to create derivative works and include the terms of distribution right in the EULA. If a company were to walk up to each of the code owners and receive the same terms in the form of a signed contract then nothing would have changed, nobody would be confused, but it would simply take longer to get the license and cause inconvenience to the owners.
Somehow I'm just not grasping the concept here... How do you come to the conclusion that pieces of scrap metal and/or used replacement parts are ever going to hold more value than a functioning automobile?
Value is based on 3 things: supply, demand, and utility. When you recycle, you completely eliminate any utility of the end product by reducing it to its individual components (steel, plastic, glass, etc). If those components are worth as much as the end product then that would mean that the end product must be no more useful than the materials in it. Until a vehicle costs nearly as much to repair as it does to recycle it and purchase another one (used or new), it still holds more value than its component materials so the manufacturer will be unable to pay you more for it than another driver.
Its a simple supply/demand relationship that causes cars to lose so much of their value independently of their utility. Americans like bigger, better, shinier, newer cars every 5 years or so and there is an inherent risk in purchasing a vehicle without any kind of guarantee other than "you just saw it drive a few miles". Between the abundant supply of 5-10 year old vehicles and the potential risk associated with their purchase, you see buyers willing and able to pay much less for the used cars than their remaining useful life would indicate. If you want to see a rise in the price of your used car then you would have to (collectively) stop flooding the market with them when they still have decades of use left.
Exactly what is the beneficial difference between what you're describing and a lease, where the car is simply sold or re-leased by the manufacturer after a predetermined time?
Did you ever use NT 3.51? 4.0? 2000? They were terrible. XP is the first MS OS that has actually stayed stable for me for more than a few days. I still get bluescreens, but hey, it is a MS product. The "professional" line was worthless in a variety of ways.
I think you're problem was that you are judging an OS based on a function it was never supposed to serve and using software that was never designed to run on it. You shouldn't judge Win2k for not being able to run Doom, Warcraft, [insert your favorite app that worked perfectly on Windows 98 here], any more than you can judge Win95 for being unable to join a domain (later patches "fixed" this, but even then it had issues).
The NT line in its entirety was extremely good for what it was intended to do. If you kept up with the patches and firewalled it properly, it was relatively secure. If you ran applications designed to be run on the NT line (absolutely nothing in the consumer market at that time) it was also extremely stable. The vast majority of reliability issues for NT came when you attempted to run applications developed for the DOS based systems though sometime around SP3 of Win 2k, these issues lessened significantly and 2k turned into a passable replacement for a home desktop though few outside of IT had any knowledge of it.