Ehh, it was okay, but even if it was a standalone game and I had never played Deus Ex, I think I would have been disappointed. The design was just off in so many ways.
But yeah, for one thing, taking tests is a skill in itself. There's usually a certain logic to the answers in multiple choice tests, for example, and knowing that logic can allow you to make good guesses even if you have no idea what the answer is.
Definitely; I have known many very smart people who sucked at taking standardized tests. I like to think that I'm smart (well, I know I am), but I have a natural affinity for multiple choice tests that's let me breeze through things that people equally smart struggled through. Though now I'm not sure if that's ultimately hindered me.
That he got only 9 years for murder? That will rehabilitate him? People have gotten longer sentences for stealing cars. I suggest when the guy is released from prison, he be given residence next to the judges house.
Eh, it's Europe, they tend to give light sentences over there.
That's a little scary...The vast majority of bullets (I hope) are purchased for target shooting or hunting; neither qualifies as "murder." And those bullets bought for home protection? Well, self-defense also does not qualify as "murder."
Actually it does mean you shouldn't be (if not won't be) convicted. The feds have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he commited a crime and this crime specifically.
What I said was just "theoretically possible"; as prosecutors tell juries every day, "beyond any reasonable doubt" does not mean "no doubt." If I come up with a implausible scenario, that doesn't always introduce "reasonable" doubt.
Actually in this case it was a slightly smaller company, and I think I actually will have to sue them. And I will likely win. And you'd be surprised at legal fights, the best litigators I've ever met came from tiny firms, yet routinely beat huge companies.
In this case the prosecutor has the burden to prove that the defendant was selling a product with no purpose but to facilitate illegal activity.
Nah, that's not necessary, I don't have to prove NO purpose but to break the law. But I am not a criminal lawyer so I won't go out on a limb and say what they have to prove, at least without seeing the indictment. But a drug dealer can't get out by proving that 1 of the 100 people he sold cocaine to was a researcher allowed by law to obtain and conduct experiments on the drug.
Usually the patent system is abused by those patent foundry companies turn out patents as their 'business model' to later troll up the real companies that do the innovation. It's good to finally see a story where a legitimate company that is trying to innovate a real product, might finally be able to use their patents to get a foot hold against what would otherwise be an impossible battle against a huge company.
Patent trolls make the headlines on slashdot, but the vast majority of patent actions are like this one.
Remember its up to the feds to prove it was illegitimate, and that gives him considerable leeway to prove that legitimate uses existed. Since telcos where buying it, its a legitimate product, albeit with capacity for abuse. Case dismissed , embarassed feds with a lot of questions to answer.
It's up to the Feds to prove their case, but it's up to the judge or jury to decide how credible his defense is. Just because you can show that it is theoretically possible that you're not breaking the law, doesn't mean you won't (or even shouldn't) get convicted.
He should have known better to post that everything he is doing is for "education purposes only" sadly.
Judges, prosecutors, and even juries tend not to be that stupid. You can't avoid criminal liability by throwing an insincere boilerplate statement up on your website.
Healthcare accounts for 17.6% [nchc.org] of GDP. Social Security is only 4.4% [ssa.gov]. So, yes, much much larger, even considering any fictitious "savings" postulated by replacing a free market with government healthcare. In reality, of course, as government subsidizes healthcare more and livespans continue to increase, both the costs of Social Security and healthcare will increase.
Only you're talking about a specific group, retirees who receive social security, and comparing it with healthcare for EVERYONE.
Because having government provide healthcare by force "in perpetuity" (your words) provides no incentive for improving quality of life, only it's extension.
Uhhh...huh? That makes no sense. You're arbitrarily splitting up healthcare technology between lifespan and quality of life, then just declaring that one will advance but the other won't purely on your personal opinion.
Movie theaters exist because teenagers need a place to make out, place phone calls, text each other, whisper, eat, drink, and gossip. Sort of like an adult-free daycare for teenagers.
Well they obviously have too much time on their hands; I propose a nationwide initiative to build Dickensian workhouses for them.
"After years of panicked lawsuits against TiVo and DVR technology in general, the NYTimes is reporting on yet another lesson for content providers to learn and then immediately forget: 'Against almost every expectation, nearly half of all people watching delayed shows are still slouching on their couches watching messages about movies, cars and beer.
In other words, advertisers shouldn't have worried because they're only be losing a little more than HALF their audience? And you think this DISPROVES their concerns? Ugh, slashlogic at work...
Only idiots, marketers, businessmen and outsiders ever thought we would be completely replaced by artificially intelligent machines. The people actually putting artificial intelligence into practice knew that AI, like so many other things, would benefit us in small steps.
Huh?? Researchers in artificial intelligence have been foretelling incredible strides for the past 5 decades; it's only recently, relatively speaking, that it's become useful.
It does not say "The right to be secure in someone else's persons, houses, papers and effects". To claim that my email is not mine because I store it in a borrowed place is isn't even good New Speak.
You're missing the point; the search/seizure has to be reasonable. To get a warrant, you have to show that to the issuing judge. In this case, there was a warrant. Someone convinced the judge that it was reasonable.
Nowhere in the Amendment does it say that the warrant has to be presented to the property owner; the only implication is it has to be presented to the person in custody.
Yet another bad ruling that demonstrates that an average judge doesn't have enough technical knowledge to make a good ruling. They all make the same mistake: because they don't understand the tech, they try to force physical-world paradigms already familiar to them onto the digital world, regardless of the fact that its a terrible fit and causes massively incorrect conclusions to be made.
Have you read the ruling? Which specific part do you disagree with?
You're missing the subtle point that opportunity can be trumped by allowable policy.
No, you're missing the point; the question isn't whether a sysadmin at the ISP can read the e-mail, it's whether the ISP itself has access to the e-mail. The subpoena is being served on the organization; the organization sets its own rules regarding access. It can't tell the court "oh, I can't give you that because the internal rules we arbitrarily made don't allow us."
I understand Google is an American company. This is American legislation. I can't take anything from the article which would tell me anything about the access to non-US citizen email. Anyone dare to speculate? I'd say "We're reading everything..."
If it's in the US, in a jurisdiction that decides to follow this judge's reasoning, then sure. The citizenship of the mail isn't the point, it's who's storing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Ehh, it was okay, but even if it was a standalone game and I had never played Deus Ex, I think I would have been disappointed. The design was just off in so many ways.
But yeah, for one thing, taking tests is a skill in itself. There's usually a certain logic to the answers in multiple choice tests, for example, and knowing that logic can allow you to make good guesses even if you have no idea what the answer is.
Definitely; I have known many very smart people who sucked at taking standardized tests. I like to think that I'm smart (well, I know I am), but I have a natural affinity for multiple choice tests that's let me breeze through things that people equally smart struggled through. Though now I'm not sure if that's ultimately hindered me.
Amazing game; I replay it approximately once a year. Someone definitely needs to make a DECENT sequel to it.
That he got only 9 years for murder? That will rehabilitate him? People have gotten longer sentences for stealing cars. I suggest when the guy is released from prison, he be given residence next to the judges house.
Eh, it's Europe, they tend to give light sentences over there.
Like there's ANY OTHER PURPOSE for a bullet.
That's a little scary...The vast majority of bullets (I hope) are purchased for target shooting or hunting; neither qualifies as "murder." And those bullets bought for home protection? Well, self-defense also does not qualify as "murder."
Actually it does mean you shouldn't be (if not won't be) convicted. The feds have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he commited a crime and this crime specifically.
What I said was just "theoretically possible"; as prosecutors tell juries every day, "beyond any reasonable doubt" does not mean "no doubt." If I come up with a implausible scenario, that doesn't always introduce "reasonable" doubt.
Actually in this case it was a slightly smaller company, and I think I actually will have to sue them. And I will likely win. And you'd be surprised at legal fights, the best litigators I've ever met came from tiny firms, yet routinely beat huge companies.
In this case the prosecutor has the burden to prove that the defendant was selling a product with no purpose but to facilitate illegal activity.
Nah, that's not necessary, I don't have to prove NO purpose but to break the law. But I am not a criminal lawyer so I won't go out on a limb and say what they have to prove, at least without seeing the indictment. But a drug dealer can't get out by proving that 1 of the 100 people he sold cocaine to was a researcher allowed by law to obtain and conduct experiments on the drug.
You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7."
Or, alternately, DON'T INTENTIONALLY RUN VIRUSES ON YOUR COMPUTER. Geeze.
Yep, but once the prosecutor meets his or her burden, most judges are hesitant to overrule the jury.
Often merely saying, "If you don't comply, I will drag you into court," is enough to get people to see things your way.
Yeah I've used that at times. Not as useful as you think.
Usually the patent system is abused by those patent foundry companies turn out patents as their 'business model' to later troll up the real companies that do the innovation. It's good to finally see a story where a legitimate company that is trying to innovate a real product, might finally be able to use their patents to get a foot hold against what would otherwise be an impossible battle against a huge company.
Patent trolls make the headlines on slashdot, but the vast majority of patent actions are like this one.
Remember its up to the feds to prove it was illegitimate, and that gives him considerable leeway to prove that legitimate uses existed. Since telcos where buying it, its a legitimate product, albeit with capacity for abuse. Case dismissed , embarassed feds with a lot of questions to answer.
It's up to the Feds to prove their case, but it's up to the judge or jury to decide how credible his defense is. Just because you can show that it is theoretically possible that you're not breaking the law, doesn't mean you won't (or even shouldn't) get convicted.
He should have known better to post that everything he is doing is for "education purposes only" sadly.
Judges, prosecutors, and even juries tend not to be that stupid. You can't avoid criminal liability by throwing an insincere boilerplate statement up on your website.
Healthcare accounts for 17.6% [nchc.org] of GDP. Social Security is only 4.4% [ssa.gov]. So, yes, much much larger, even considering any fictitious "savings" postulated by replacing a free market with government healthcare. In reality, of course, as government subsidizes healthcare more and livespans continue to increase, both the costs of Social Security and healthcare will increase.
Only you're talking about a specific group, retirees who receive social security, and comparing it with healthcare for EVERYONE. Because having government provide healthcare by force "in perpetuity" (your words) provides no incentive for improving quality of life, only it's extension.
Uhhh...huh? That makes no sense. You're arbitrarily splitting up healthcare technology between lifespan and quality of life, then just declaring that one will advance but the other won't purely on your personal opinion.
Movie theaters exist because teenagers need a place to make out, place phone calls, text each other, whisper, eat, drink, and gossip. Sort of like an adult-free daycare for teenagers.
Well they obviously have too much time on their hands; I propose a nationwide initiative to build Dickensian workhouses for them.
"After years of panicked lawsuits against TiVo and DVR technology in general, the NYTimes is reporting on yet another lesson for content providers to learn and then immediately forget: 'Against almost every expectation, nearly half of all people watching delayed shows are still slouching on their couches watching messages about movies, cars and beer.
In other words, advertisers shouldn't have worried because they're only be losing a little more than HALF their audience? And you think this DISPROVES their concerns? Ugh, slashlogic at work...
The end of scarcity is inevitable. You can attempt to stand in the way, you can slow it down, marginally...but you will not stop it.
When making money from movies becomes difficult if not impossible, they'll just stop making them. That's what will stop it.
Only idiots, marketers, businessmen and outsiders ever thought we would be completely replaced by artificially intelligent machines. The people actually putting artificial intelligence into practice knew that AI, like so many other things, would benefit us in small steps.
Huh?? Researchers in artificial intelligence have been foretelling incredible strides for the past 5 decades; it's only recently, relatively speaking, that it's become useful.
If the government wants access to my inbox they'll need to talk to me since I'm the admin of my mail server.
So they'll just serve the warrant on you instead of your ISP. Same result; they have your e-mail.
It does not say "The right to be secure in someone else's persons, houses, papers and effects". To claim that my email is not mine because I store it in a borrowed place is isn't even good New Speak.
You're missing the point; the search/seizure has to be reasonable. To get a warrant, you have to show that to the issuing judge. In this case, there was a warrant. Someone convinced the judge that it was reasonable.
Nowhere in the Amendment does it say that the warrant has to be presented to the property owner; the only implication is it has to be presented to the person in custody.
If this stupid decision goes through, it makes all unwarranted searches of email admissible in court.
No it doesn't.
Yet another bad ruling that demonstrates that an average judge doesn't have enough technical knowledge to make a good ruling. They all make the same mistake: because they don't understand the tech, they try to force physical-world paradigms already familiar to them onto the digital world, regardless of the fact that its a terrible fit and causes massively incorrect conclusions to be made.
Have you read the ruling? Which specific part do you disagree with?
You're missing the subtle point that opportunity can be trumped by allowable policy.
No, you're missing the point; the question isn't whether a sysadmin at the ISP can read the e-mail, it's whether the ISP itself has access to the e-mail. The subpoena is being served on the organization; the organization sets its own rules regarding access. It can't tell the court "oh, I can't give you that because the internal rules we arbitrarily made don't allow us."
I understand Google is an American company. This is American legislation. I can't take anything from the article which would tell me anything about the access to non-US citizen email. Anyone dare to speculate? I'd say "We're reading everything ..."
If it's in the US, in a jurisdiction that decides to follow this judge's reasoning, then sure. The citizenship of the mail isn't the point, it's who's storing it.