Really? Your english skills are so bad you can't pull the obvious meaning from that? You can't work out a word to drop to handle the author changing their train of thought in the middle?
I guess my X skills are worse than your English skills since clearly X must be your first language.
Because never in all of history has someone in America been arrested without good reason. And certainly no one has ever been charged with "resisting arrest" and nothing else.
And your word of caution. No it doesn't matter if you are right. If I shoot a cop who was trying to arrest me without valid cause, the fact that he didn't have a valid cause isn't going to stop the "large body of law enforcement officers out to cease my free movement". Just look at the cases of the non-knock warrant being served on the wrong house and the people inside doing what you say and getting shot because they dared defend themselves.
That just means the patent doesn't describe how this particular one works. It might describe part of how it works, it might describe a completely different approach, etc.
It also means that some part of the design isn't protected by that patent, which you would expect give the article also says "exactly how this is done is a trade secret" - and one thing can't be both a trade secret and a patented. I can however, combine a patented invention and a trade secret - just if the secret ever gets out I can't stop others from using it.
They don't need a warrant. They just need to arrest you. If you don't think they have a valid reason to arrest you and don't comply then resisting arrest becomes their reason.
You can sue them later, but good luck with that and with getting those prints out of the system.
And I'm sure there's not a single person in the world who would view/listen/whatever to something they downloaded instead of visiting the youtube website. Not a single one, not even once.
I'm sure you were foaming at the mouth to much to notice, but I didn't mention stopping people from dieing as being the issue. I just think your idea of segregating some kids from socialising at school is retarded when there's a simple alternative that no one except you seems to have a problem with.
I'm not sure why peanuts are so important to your life, but I'm sure your kid could sneak some to school if it mattered so much anyway. I'm pretty sure they don't actually do strip searches for them.
Sure you haven't kept up with increases in allergies amongst children, but schools generally have. And yes they are over reacting - more people die from lightning strikes than peanut allergies. Then again they don't let the kids out in the middle of the oval or up on the roof during thunderstorms either.
It's an effectively no impact system - oh noes little Johnny can't eat a peanut whatever will he do - that likely results in a few kids not being homeschooled by paranoid parents at the very least.
You have a strange view of "lowest common denominator". Is being able to eat a peanut at school really that import to your life? You know they don't let them do a bunch of other things as well, right? You are going to have an aneurysm when you see the other things they don't let kids do at school these days that were fine way back when.
The "transparency" seems to come from the fact that they tend to install their root CA into Internet Explorer's certificate store
No transparency simply means not needing the browser to be configured to use the proxy server.
SSL certs are completly orthogonal, though since a transparent proxy is a textbook example of a "man in the middle" you need to do somthing like you described to avoid cert errors on every connection (and of course make life much easier for a malicious man in the middle further down the line).
Because having all the kids miss out on one particular non-essential snack food is better than forcing a few of the kids to have their lunch completely seperated from the rest of the kids? After all kids have never teased or bullied people who are highlighted as being different. And socialising isn't important for the kids who happen to have a relatively common allergy.
And of course kids would never pocket some of their food and eat it in class later. Or not wash their hands between handling peanuts and playing tag with the allergic kid. Or keep the peanuts to throw at the allergic kids for giggles.
Sure if you are running a file sharing site, but the more minor offences like selling fake pharmaceuticals that kill people are unlikely to result in that.
Sure it's unlikely to do so just to arrest somebody, but planes sometimes have to land where they aren't scheduled to. Which is why it was in the "just in case" sentence, it's an additional risk on entering US jurisdiction.
If you run (or have run) and online pharmacy that sold to Americans, a online casino or poker site that let Americans play, a file sharing site, and so on then do not set foot in America.
Best not get on a plane that flies near America (though that's going to be hard for Canadians) just in case.
At least make them go through the work of an extradition and maybe pick a country who doesn't just bend over and say "how far do you want me to stretch?"
Because it's impossible that he's doing an experiment and seeing how many people with stick with IE7 even when it results in them being charged extra?
Maybe he just wants to see how many of them stick with IE7, how many swap to a different browser, and how many leave altogether. Since it's only 3% of his customers he can likely survive the worst case of they all leave never to return. But if he finds that most just swap browsers he can drop the IE7 support completely and just put up a message saying to use one of this list of browsers.
But charging extra for arbitrary reasons is perfectly defensible. As long as the reason isn't a protected group anyway. "Just because" is defense enough.
Given the cost of land and that the soil is full of lead, go ahead. You won't last long. Of course you'll also have to meet a bunch of zoning/etc rule but those can be changed via elected officials.
Rural live has a bunch of advantages and a bunch of disadvantages. And they come in packages you don't get to pick and choose.
And of course urban level connectivity might be a bad thing for those who like the rural life in the longer term. I'd move in a flash if I could get the connectivity that lets me have the job I currently have (which is 99% remote and could easily be done from anywhere with good enough connectivity - luckily so far the Indians we have tried to employ just have been poor enough work wise that I'm still worth the cost). I suspect I'm not unique in that position - the rural environment meshes fine with the stereotypical basement dweller who shops on amazon and socializes on Call of Duty if they can get the connectivity. So supply/demand would then drive up prices in rural areas and fill them with antisocial nerds.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Your english skills are so bad you can't pull the obvious meaning from that? You can't work out a word to drop to handle the author changing their train of thought in the middle?
I guess my X skills are worse than your English skills since clearly X must be your first language.
Because never in all of history has someone in America been arrested without good reason. And certainly no one has ever been charged with "resisting arrest" and nothing else.
For example:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_13686438
http://articles.philly.com/2010-06-29/news/24962922_1_wawa-officers-civilians
And your word of caution. No it doesn't matter if you are right. If I shoot a cop who was trying to arrest me without valid cause, the fact that he didn't have a valid cause isn't going to stop the "large body of law enforcement officers out to cease my free movement". Just look at the cases of the non-knock warrant being served on the wrong house and the people inside doing what you say and getting shot because they dared defend themselves.
For example:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18328267/
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475
No.
That just means the patent doesn't describe how this particular one works. It might describe part of how it works, it might describe a completely different approach, etc.
It also means that some part of the design isn't protected by that patent, which you would expect give the article also says "exactly how this is done is a trade secret" - and one thing can't be both a trade secret and a patented. I can however, combine a patented invention and a trade secret - just if the secret ever gets out I can't stop others from using it.
They don't need a warrant. They just need to arrest you. If you don't think they have a valid reason to arrest you and don't comply then resisting arrest becomes their reason.
You can sue them later, but good luck with that and with getting those prints out of the system.
Yeah because the Apple counter example to "cheaper, cheaper, cheaper" doesn't have any of their devices built in China. Not a one!
Take a fucking guess.
The summary tells you what you need to change - just how much spoon feeding do you need?
those would be fantasy, surely? Problem solved!
Contradicting the "necessary" claim.
Which is what he said. They are good at FUD but bad at hype.
This is about hype, and hence is badly done.
How did we keep safe and fight crime before drones existed?
And I'm sure there's not a single person in the world who would view/listen/whatever to something they downloaded instead of visiting the youtube website. Not a single one, not even once.
Or let someone else do the lense swapping for you: http://www.2d-glasses.com/
I'm sure you were foaming at the mouth to much to notice, but I didn't mention stopping people from dieing as being the issue. I just think your idea of segregating some kids from socialising at school is retarded when there's a simple alternative that no one except you seems to have a problem with.
I'm not sure why peanuts are so important to your life, but I'm sure your kid could sneak some to school if it mattered so much anyway. I'm pretty sure they don't actually do strip searches for them.
Sure you haven't kept up with increases in allergies amongst children, but schools generally have. And yes they are over reacting - more people die from lightning strikes than peanut allergies. Then again they don't let the kids out in the middle of the oval or up on the roof during thunderstorms either.
It's an effectively no impact system - oh noes little Johnny can't eat a peanut whatever will he do - that likely results in a few kids not being homeschooled by paranoid parents at the very least.
You have a strange view of "lowest common denominator". Is being able to eat a peanut at school really that import to your life? You know they don't let them do a bunch of other things as well, right? You are going to have an aneurysm when you see the other things they don't let kids do at school these days that were fine way back when.
No transparency simply means not needing the browser to be configured to use the proxy server.
SSL certs are completly orthogonal, though since a transparent proxy is a textbook example of a "man in the middle" you need to do somthing like you described to avoid cert errors on every connection (and of course make life much easier for a malicious man in the middle further down the line).
WHich is completely different from being able to print it into worthlessness of a whim. But feel free to pretend.
There's a limit to how much gold you can borrow. There is no limit to how much fiat money you can print.
That is a pretty big difference (which doesn't mean gold backed money is better, just that it really does change something).
3%?
Surely it's whatever the price difference between non-GMO and GMO soya beans is as the base restitution. Then you tack on punative damages of course.
Because having all the kids miss out on one particular non-essential snack food is better than forcing a few of the kids to have their lunch completely seperated from the rest of the kids? After all kids have never teased or bullied people who are highlighted as being different. And socialising isn't important for the kids who happen to have a relatively common allergy.
And of course kids would never pocket some of their food and eat it in class later. Or not wash their hands between handling peanuts and playing tag with the allergic kid. Or keep the peanuts to throw at the allergic kids for giggles.
Sure if you are running a file sharing site, but the more minor offences like selling fake pharmaceuticals that kill people are unlikely to result in that.
Sure it's unlikely to do so just to arrest somebody, but planes sometimes have to land where they aren't scheduled to. Which is why it was in the "just in case" sentence, it's an additional risk on entering US jurisdiction.
If you run (or have run) and online pharmacy that sold to Americans, a online casino or poker site that let Americans play, a file sharing site, and so on then do not set foot in America.
Best not get on a plane that flies near America (though that's going to be hard for Canadians) just in case.
At least make them go through the work of an extradition and maybe pick a country who doesn't just bend over and say "how far do you want me to stretch?"
Because it's impossible that he's doing an experiment and seeing how many people with stick with IE7 even when it results in them being charged extra?
Maybe he just wants to see how many of them stick with IE7, how many swap to a different browser, and how many leave altogether. Since it's only 3% of his customers he can likely survive the worst case of they all leave never to return. But if he finds that most just swap browsers he can drop the IE7 support completely and just put up a message saying to use one of this list of browsers.
But charging extra for arbitrary reasons is perfectly defensible. As long as the reason isn't a protected group anyway. "Just because" is defense enough.
So you don't know what investing is then.
Which is fine, but it seems a bit foolish to comment on it.
Given the cost of land and that the soil is full of lead, go ahead. You won't last long. Of course you'll also have to meet a bunch of zoning/etc rule but those can be changed via elected officials.
Rural live has a bunch of advantages and a bunch of disadvantages. And they come in packages you don't get to pick and choose.
And of course urban level connectivity might be a bad thing for those who like the rural life in the longer term. I'd move in a flash if I could get the connectivity that lets me have the job I currently have (which is 99% remote and could easily be done from anywhere with good enough connectivity - luckily so far the Indians we have tried to employ just have been poor enough work wise that I'm still worth the cost). I suspect I'm not unique in that position - the rural environment meshes fine with the stereotypical basement dweller who shops on amazon and socializes on Call of Duty if they can get the connectivity. So supply/demand would then drive up prices in rural areas and fill them with antisocial nerds.