1) I don't care. Most of the time I am listening to music I either have an internet connection or am in my car with XM 2) I consider 'ownership' vastly overrated. I have probably $3000 worth of paid for music I almost never listen to. My taste in music has changed often through the years. If I hear some of the old stuff, OK. If I don't, also OK. On the other hand, I really like being able to say 'today I want to hear classic rock, yesterday it was jazz, tomorrow maybe classical, maybe some trop rock later on, maybe some new adult music. Streaming lets me do that for a pretty low price. In addition, I have heard new music and even genres I never heard before, and like that.
So they polled a group whose main focus is freedom of expression, and found out that the members are concerned about freedom of expression. Shocking. Next up, poll of members of the ARRL detemines that 84% of the people are interested in ham radio.
They HAD an arrest warrant. The only other thing they needed in order to LEGALLY enter the house was 'reason to believe the suspect is in the house'. The radar gave them that reason to belieive. WTF is with the mods?
They had an arrest warrant. They were there only to arrest him. Previous SCOTUS rulings said police can enter a residence with an arrest warrent if there is 'reason to beleive the suspect is within'. Police said use of radar was part of what gave them reason to think he was in there.
Some people like screens that are large enough to be useful. Phones with large screens are hard to carry around. A laptop needs wifi (or wired) for the same things that a tablet does, and you can't make calls with it either.
Did you just say it is an anachronism to do what every living creature does - react? Maybe computers are not quite as advanced as you think.
I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you go home now. Someone is working on your street and I am too stupid to work around that unless someone gives me an alternate route. Too bad I am so much more knowledgeable than you.
On my way to lunch today I was driving on a residential street, and the gas company had the road dug up. There was a guy there with a 'slow' sign indicating that the 'road' was now a few pieces of plywood on someones lawn. How do you prepare for something like that?
Do you understand the difference between 'has not happened' and 'can not happen'? There are many instances of accidents caused by things that you would think could not cause an accident.
Is a laser by itself likely to bring down a plane? No. Can a laser be the last straw that causes a crash when the pilots are already dealing with some other problem? Yes.
Look into the history of air crashes and educate yourself. Except for mechanical failures a whole bunch of crashes are caused by multiple small things that individually would not be a problem.
I don't know about Australia, but in the US 'presumed innocent' does not mean, and has never meant, what you think.
Presumption of innocence simply means that the prosecution has the onus in a trial. They must prove you are guilty. The defense does not have to prove anything, they just poke holes in the prosecutions case.
Please understand that in-situ is an english phrase that came from latin. It does not mean the same as on-site. On-site just means the stuff is there, it could have been put there by an earlier mission. In-situ means the stuff is in the place it was originally found.
I didn't mean it is literally a contract, I said basically. The point is, multiple parties were involved in it's creation, and when that is the case it is not unusual to consider other sources to resolve ambiguity.
Yes, you can walk away from a license. That is not the point. The license is already drafted. You interpret it and decide it is good. There is no reason to walk away or negotiate. It would be highly unfair for the licensor to come back and say 'the words I said (and you agreed to by using the product) are not actually what I meant'.
The Constitution is basically a contract between the States. It is not unusual in contract law to look outside the contract to resolve ambiguities. They are looking for the so-called 'meeting of the minds' between the parties to determine the real meaning.
A license is not a contract. It is completely one-sided. and the licensee has no input and there is no meeting of the minds. Therefore, the licensor has all the responsibility for making the license clear. He does not get to go back later and say 'that is not what I meant'.
This is an idea that is often posted on here, and it never makes sense to me. What makes you think a programming language would do any better with these kinds of questions? There are basically an infinite number of variables - how do you write a program that handles all those variables, especially when some variables or values were not even known to exist (or were otherwise not considered) when the program (law) was written? The best you could do is throw an exception when the set of variables and values does not already match an existing definition.
Which is basically what the law does. If a case is largely the same as a prior case the principles of law are pretty well understood, and executing the 'program' just determines which party wins based on the established rules. But when a case is not just like a previous case, then more work is required. When that work has been done it becomes precedent, and future cases do not need to consider how those variables should be interpreted.
Broadcast radio is 'full of ads'. As in, a LARGE percentage of the time is spent trying to get you to purchase some product or other, often in the most obnoxious way possible.
XM does have some announcments. Nowhere nearly as frequent as 'every other song', usually I'll hear one or two announcements during my 1/2 hour commute, and those announcements generally are less than 5 seconds long. XMs announcements tend to be 'if you want to hear more of that artist, switch to channel x'. I guess if you are desperate to call something an ad that would count.
It seems the main proponents of 3D printing are people that break a lot of stuff. OK, everybody breaks stuff, but most people just tape (or glue) the broken thing back on, which is way cheaper and quicker than printing a new one will ever be.
I am still waiting for the 'killer' 3D printing idea, that would make ordinary people care at all about 3D printing.
Why? Because it couldn't be an application problem, or a hardware problem, or a power problem, or a network problem, or even an admin problem? Must be the OS?
What are you listening to on XM that is 'nothing but ads'? I have been listening to XM for over a decade in both cars and at home (mostly rock/jazz/classical) and I have yet to hear an ad.
The reason that geeks get incensed about both things is because they like being incensed and will find any reason to do so, even if said reason is entirely incorrect. Not exactly 'sensible'.
In the case of patents, 'on the computer/on the internet' DOES in fact make a difference. The irate geeks focus on one of two things: they either claim that patents protect concepts, or they claim it is 'obvious'. Both are wrong. A patent does not protect 'display a moving picture', it protects HOW you do that. A film projector is fundamentally different in almost every way from a computer decoding an MPEG. But the geek will say 'it is the same thing, only on a computer'. No, it is not. Then they trot out the 'obvious' claim, but only after someone has already done it. Everything becomes obvious after it has been done.
In the case of Uber they claim that the 'new' thing is 'it is an app'. But the fundamental thing is it is a car-for-hire service, and car-for-hire services are regulated. It doesn't matter in the slightest HOW the car is hired.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would he still only have 594 songs?
1) I don't care. Most of the time I am listening to music I either have an internet connection or am in my car with XM
2) I consider 'ownership' vastly overrated. I have probably $3000 worth of paid for music I almost never listen to. My taste in music has changed often through the years. If I hear some of the old stuff, OK. If I don't, also OK. On the other hand, I really like being able to say 'today I want to hear classic rock, yesterday it was jazz, tomorrow maybe classical, maybe some trop rock later on, maybe some new adult music. Streaming lets me do that for a pretty low price. In addition, I have heard new music and even genres I never heard before, and like that.
So they polled a group whose main focus is freedom of expression, and found out that the members are concerned about freedom of expression. Shocking. Next up, poll of members of the ARRL detemines that 84% of the people are interested in ham radio.
Not in the US. Unclaimed money from dormant accounts is transferred to the state. You can reclaim it from the state.
They HAD an arrest warrant. The only other thing they needed in order to LEGALLY enter the house was 'reason to believe the suspect is in the house'. The radar gave them that reason to belieive. WTF is with the mods?
They had an arrest warrant. They were there only to arrest him. Previous SCOTUS rulings said police can enter a residence with an arrest warrent if there is 'reason to beleive the suspect is within'. Police said use of radar was part of what gave them reason to think he was in there.
Some people like screens that are large enough to be useful. Phones with large screens are hard to carry around. A laptop needs wifi (or wired) for the same things that a tablet does, and you can't make calls with it either.
You can't really be that stupid. 'Incidences of use of force' is NOT the same thing as 'number of officers'. You do know that, right?
Huh? How the hell do you get that?
Did you just say it is an anachronism to do what every living creature does - react? Maybe computers are not quite as advanced as you think.
I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you go home now. Someone is working on your street and I am too stupid to work around that unless someone gives me an alternate route. Too bad I am so much more knowledgeable than you.
On my way to lunch today I was driving on a residential street, and the gas company had the road dug up. There was a guy there with a 'slow' sign indicating that the 'road' was now a few pieces of plywood on someones lawn. How do you prepare for something like that?
I hope you are not claiming that that situation does not lead to crashes.
Do you understand the difference between 'has not happened' and 'can not happen'? There are many instances of accidents caused by things that you would think could not cause an accident.
Is a laser by itself likely to bring down a plane? No. Can a laser be the last straw that causes a crash when the pilots are already dealing with some other problem? Yes.
Look into the history of air crashes and educate yourself. Except for mechanical failures a whole bunch of crashes are caused by multiple small things that individually would not be a problem.
No. Presumption of guilt would be to lock you up, then later determine if you actually were drunk or not.
Presumption of guilt would be 'you have been accused of drunk driving, unless you can prove otherwise you are hereby convicted'.
I don't know about Australia, but in the US 'presumed innocent' does not mean, and has never meant, what you think.
Presumption of innocence simply means that the prosecution has the onus in a trial. They must prove you are guilty. The defense does not have to prove anything, they just poke holes in the prosecutions case.
Please understand that in-situ is an english phrase that came from latin. It does not mean the same as on-site. On-site just means the stuff is there, it could have been put there by an earlier mission. In-situ means the stuff is in the place it was originally found.
I didn't mean it is literally a contract, I said basically. The point is, multiple parties were involved in it's creation, and when that is the case it is not unusual to consider other sources to resolve ambiguity.
Yes, you can walk away from a license. That is not the point. The license is already drafted. You interpret it and decide it is good. There is no reason to walk away or negotiate. It would be highly unfair for the licensor to come back and say 'the words I said (and you agreed to by using the product) are not actually what I meant'.
It will run the same every time, right up until the point where a new unexpected input is introduced. What then?
The Constitution is basically a contract between the States. It is not unusual in contract law to look outside the contract to resolve ambiguities. They are looking for the so-called 'meeting of the minds' between the parties to determine the real meaning.
A license is not a contract. It is completely one-sided. and the licensee has no input and there is no meeting of the minds. Therefore, the licensor has all the responsibility for making the license clear. He does not get to go back later and say 'that is not what I meant'.
This is an idea that is often posted on here, and it never makes sense to me. What makes you think a programming language would do any better with these kinds of questions? There are basically an infinite number of variables - how do you write a program that handles all those variables, especially when some variables or values were not even known to exist (or were otherwise not considered) when the program (law) was written? The best you could do is throw an exception when the set of variables and values does not already match an existing definition.
Which is basically what the law does. If a case is largely the same as a prior case the principles of law are pretty well understood, and executing the 'program' just determines which party wins based on the established rules. But when a case is not just like a previous case, then more work is required. When that work has been done it becomes precedent, and future cases do not need to consider how those variables should be interpreted.
Broadcast radio is 'full of ads'. As in, a LARGE percentage of the time is spent trying to get you to purchase some product or other, often in the most obnoxious way possible.
XM does have some announcments. Nowhere nearly as frequent as 'every other song', usually I'll hear one or two announcements during my 1/2 hour commute, and those announcements generally are less than 5 seconds long. XMs announcements tend to be 'if you want to hear more of that artist, switch to channel x'. I guess if you are desperate to call something an ad that would count.
It seems the main proponents of 3D printing are people that break a lot of stuff. OK, everybody breaks stuff, but most people just tape (or glue) the broken thing back on, which is way cheaper and quicker than printing a new one will ever be.
I am still waiting for the 'killer' 3D printing idea, that would make ordinary people care at all about 3D printing.
Why? Because it couldn't be an application problem, or a hardware problem, or a power problem, or a network problem, or even an admin problem? Must be the OS?
What are you listening to on XM that is 'nothing but ads'? I have been listening to XM for over a decade in both cars and at home (mostly rock/jazz/classical) and I have yet to hear an ad.
The reason that geeks get incensed about both things is because they like being incensed and will find any reason to do so, even if said reason is entirely incorrect. Not exactly 'sensible'.
In the case of patents, 'on the computer/on the internet' DOES in fact make a difference. The irate geeks focus on one of two things: they either claim that patents protect concepts, or they claim it is 'obvious'. Both are wrong. A patent does not protect 'display a moving picture', it protects HOW you do that. A film projector is fundamentally different in almost every way from a computer decoding an MPEG. But the geek will say 'it is the same thing, only on a computer'. No, it is not. Then they trot out the 'obvious' claim, but only after someone has already done it. Everything becomes obvious after it has been done.
In the case of Uber they claim that the 'new' thing is 'it is an app'. But the fundamental thing is it is a car-for-hire service, and car-for-hire services are regulated. It doesn't matter in the slightest HOW the car is hired.