History is not only written by winners, it is also proclaimed by people who personally remember it because they were there, personally witnessed what had happened, and were fortunate enough to survive it. I personally know people that fit this category.
acrobat reader is the only pdf reader I've used that supports complex pdfs with embedded scripting... I don't have many pdfs that require this, but I do have a few, and no pdf reader other than Acrobat supports them.
Also, Acrobat was the only reader I've ever used that had a facility to print in "booklet" mode, which was kind of nice for printing out things like product instruction manuals.
There's no requirement for the police to attempt to determine, locate, and contact the owner of seized items.
They should be caring if they are planning on auctioning it off.
A number of years ago, I recall a real estate scandal being in the papers where some people's homes were being sold to other people by a real estate company while the real owners were on vacation and out of town when the real estate company involved had no idea that the people they were selling it for did not have the rights to sell. They were still on the hook when the rightful owners returned, despite their sincerest belief that they were acting in accordance with the law. The rightful (previous) owners all got their property back when the crooks were caught, and I believe that the real estate company was in the process of being sued by several people for not more throughly checking the credentials of the claimed owners.
My point being that if a house can go back to its original owners, why should it be any different for moon rocks?
Apple still needs to pay what they have always been owing, plus applicable interest in the intervening time, plus applicable legal penalties. They are only applying it retroactively to previous taxes not paid as far back as 2003 because that's the relevant statute of limitations here. The arrangement between Apple and the Irish government actually started in 1991.
"the rightful owner of the stolen property was given ample chance to claim it...." Why do I doubt this? Not that I doubt that the requisite time had elapsed, but I am somewhat skeptical that they were dutifully informed in a timely manner that the property was available for them to reclaim it.
I donate my (rightfully owned) car to a museum.
(The car that rightfully belongs to the museum) is stolen from the museum.
(The car that rightfully belongs to the museum) is retrieved by the police.
(The car that rightfully belongs to the museum) is not claimed by the museum. It now rightfully belongs to the police.
(The car that rightfully belongs to the police) is auctioned, and purchased by a buyer.
I want my car back!
Was the museum dutififully informed that it was recovered before they auctioned it, and the museum actively declined to claim it, or did they not claim it because the police did not bother to make sure that they knew? No response from them should not necessarily mean that they agreed to surrender ownership, since it may mean that they do not yet know because they haven' *actually* gotten any word about it (perhaps because of messages not being properly relayed or whatnot).
Yes, they take a while.... at least compared to gassing up. In my experience, even filling up from below "E" on the fuel gauge with an 85 litre tank (22 gallons) can be done and over with in about 6 or 7 minutes, including paying for it.
It's my understanding that in general with stolen goods, when this is discovered by you only *after* you bought the item(s), you will lose those goods, and have few legal recourses but to sue the person you bought it from. Buying property that is stolen, no matter how ignorant you are of the nature of the property, does not entitle you to legally possess that property once it is known that it was stolen.
I seem to recall a real estate scam a few years ago that really illustrated this point.
.... for DropBox to change public document access to a redirect, provided by the owner of the dropbox folder? The person will have to find a new host and provide the url to DropBox so that it can redirect, obviously, and then DB's public document system basically turns into url redirection mechanism so that the existing links don't break if the person who had uploaded the doc finds a new host for the content.
My point is that barring a court order, it is actually up to your isp whether to terminate your access or not, and it generally isn't in your ISPs interest to lose you as a subscriber unless your usage is impacting other users.
broadband access isn't an inalienable right, so there's little you can do if your ISP wants to be in bed with the music industry companies and do whatever they say, but in the end it's still not going to be beneficial to them if they start disconnecting lots of subscribers
How do you dispute charges for something like this? How do you prove that you didn't walk out of there with something that their computer system says that you did?
While the convenience is nice for something like this, and as long as it is working as it is intended, everything will be fine.
And if your ISP wants to cozy up to the music industry and do whatever they want, then you might just have to find a different provider. It's your ISP that loses out if they lose you as a subscriber, so it's not in their best interests to alienate you without a pretty good reason.
... the link between salary and job satisfaction is very weak.
I don't think this is entirely true... certainly if you do not feel that you are being paid fairly for the work you are doing, then you aren't going to be satisfied... so at least among lower income levels, I would suggest that this link is actually quite strong... I suspect that the relationship between salary and job satisfaction may resemble a logarithmic curve, where increased salary past a certain point offers diminishing returns on increased amounts of satisfaction, but just because there may be a negligible relationship between job salary and job satisfaction at the highest salary levels does not mean that the link between them is necessarily weak in general.
Unless you are suggesting that Linux malware is actually just the mindset of the people that use it, detecting it would not be dependent on whether or not they admit to being wrong.
As an AFOL, I know that we build what is in the kit to learn possibly new design patterns that we can then apply to our own original creations. About 1/3 of my lego is kits, and most every single thing that I've built has taught me something that I didn't think of to do previously.
It's only a sign of stupid if you think that learning is a sign of stupid.
Well yes, but the point is the same... there is no maximum age. I just wanted to be inclusive for the category of AFOL's that happen to be centenarians (and there are a few out there now, I hear).
As far as I was aware, the only restriction they make on the type of car is that it cannot have any markings that associate it with any particular person, company, or product other than the manufacturer of the vehicle itself.
Obviously the only difference between her and someone else is because of her political leverage, but while that is most definitely not fair to others who may have had something similar happen and had to deal with the lengthy process that you had just mentioned, no actual laws were broken with Trudeau's hand-waving of the matter as it were, and she was therefore not an illegal immigrant.
Then there are the idiots who turn on their phones in front of you, blinding you, to make or receive a call or an SMS and talk their head off.
It's a fast way to get kicked out of a theatre, actually... I've even seen it happen, thankfully only a couple of times, but I think when the attendees know that the theatre doesn't tolerate it, that tends to keep most everyone in line with regards to theatre etiquette. Usually, they will even have a commercial during the commercials before the film starts that addresses one aspect or another of theatre etiquette such as texting on a phone or talking during a movie that makes people aware that it is unacceptable.
Slashdot Mirror
History is not only written by winners, it is also proclaimed by people who personally remember it because they were there, personally witnessed what had happened, and were fortunate enough to survive it. I personally know people that fit this category.
acrobat reader is the only pdf reader I've used that supports complex pdfs with embedded scripting... I don't have many pdfs that require this, but I do have a few, and no pdf reader other than Acrobat supports them.
Also, Acrobat was the only reader I've ever used that had a facility to print in "booklet" mode, which was kind of nice for printing out things like product instruction manuals.
They should be caring if they are planning on auctioning it off.
A number of years ago, I recall a real estate scandal being in the papers where some people's homes were being sold to other people by a real estate company while the real owners were on vacation and out of town when the real estate company involved had no idea that the people they were selling it for did not have the rights to sell. They were still on the hook when the rightful owners returned, despite their sincerest belief that they were acting in accordance with the law. The rightful (previous) owners all got their property back when the crooks were caught, and I believe that the real estate company was in the process of being sued by several people for not more throughly checking the credentials of the claimed owners.
My point being that if a house can go back to its original owners, why should it be any different for moon rocks?
Apple still needs to pay what they have always been owing, plus applicable interest in the intervening time, plus applicable legal penalties. They are only applying it retroactively to previous taxes not paid as far back as 2003 because that's the relevant statute of limitations here. The arrangement between Apple and the Irish government actually started in 1991.
Arguing that one should not be singled out for misconduct on the premise that everyone else is doing it is ultimately still an admission of guilt.
Exactly my point... and that the police apparently did not do this should mean that it was not ever legally theirs to auction off...
"the rightful owner of the stolen property was given ample chance to claim it...." Why do I doubt this? Not that I doubt that the requisite time had elapsed, but I am somewhat skeptical that they were dutifully informed in a timely manner that the property was available for them to reclaim it.
Was the museum dutififully informed that it was recovered before they auctioned it, and the museum actively declined to claim it, or did they not claim it because the police did not bother to make sure that they knew? No response from them should not necessarily mean that they agreed to surrender ownership, since it may mean that they do not yet know because they haven' *actually* gotten any word about it (perhaps because of messages not being properly relayed or whatnot).
Yes, they take a while.... at least compared to gassing up. In my experience, even filling up from below "E" on the fuel gauge with an 85 litre tank (22 gallons) can be done and over with in about 6 or 7 minutes, including paying for it.
It's my understanding that in general with stolen goods, when this is discovered by you only *after* you bought the item(s), you will lose those goods, and have few legal recourses but to sue the person you bought it from. Buying property that is stolen, no matter how ignorant you are of the nature of the property, does not entitle you to legally possess that property once it is known that it was stolen.
I seem to recall a real estate scam a few years ago that really illustrated this point.
.... for DropBox to change public document access to a redirect, provided by the owner of the dropbox folder? The person will have to find a new host and provide the url to DropBox so that it can redirect, obviously, and then DB's public document system basically turns into url redirection mechanism so that the existing links don't break if the person who had uploaded the doc finds a new host for the content.
You misunderstand what I am asking... I am asking how you download the fix.
... then how do you download the update?
broadband access isn't an inalienable right, so there's little you can do if your ISP wants to be in bed with the music industry companies and do whatever they say, but in the end it's still not going to be beneficial to them if they start disconnecting lots of subscribers
How do you dispute charges for something like this? How do you prove that you didn't walk out of there with something that their computer system says that you did?
While the convenience is nice for something like this, and as long as it is working as it is intended, everything will be fine.
But you know... Murphy's law and everything.
And if your ISP wants to cozy up to the music industry and do whatever they want, then you might just have to find a different provider. It's your ISP that loses out if they lose you as a subscriber, so it's not in their best interests to alienate you without a pretty good reason.
I don't think this is entirely true... certainly if you do not feel that you are being paid fairly for the work you are doing, then you aren't going to be satisfied... so at least among lower income levels, I would suggest that this link is actually quite strong... I suspect that the relationship between salary and job satisfaction may resemble a logarithmic curve, where increased salary past a certain point offers diminishing returns on increased amounts of satisfaction, but just because there may be a negligible relationship between job salary and job satisfaction at the highest salary levels does not mean that the link between them is necessarily weak in general.
Unless you are suggesting that Linux malware is actually just the mindset of the people that use it, detecting it would not be dependent on whether or not they admit to being wrong.
As an AFOL, I know that we build what is in the kit to learn possibly new design patterns that we can then apply to our own original creations. About 1/3 of my lego is kits, and most every single thing that I've built has taught me something that I didn't think of to do previously.
It's only a sign of stupid if you think that learning is a sign of stupid.
Well yes, but the point is the same... there is no maximum age. I just wanted to be inclusive for the category of AFOL's that happen to be centenarians (and there are a few out there now, I hear).
Uh.... what?
suitable for all children from age 3 to 123
As far as I was aware, the only restriction they make on the type of car is that it cannot have any markings that associate it with any particular person, company, or product other than the manufacturer of the vehicle itself.
Obviously the only difference between her and someone else is because of her political leverage, but while that is most definitely not fair to others who may have had something similar happen and had to deal with the lengthy process that you had just mentioned, no actual laws were broken with Trudeau's hand-waving of the matter as it were, and she was therefore not an illegal immigrant.
It's a fast way to get kicked out of a theatre, actually... I've even seen it happen, thankfully only a couple of times, but I think when the attendees know that the theatre doesn't tolerate it, that tends to keep most everyone in line with regards to theatre etiquette. Usually, they will even have a commercial during the commercials before the film starts that addresses one aspect or another of theatre etiquette such as texting on a phone or talking during a movie that makes people aware that it is unacceptable.