It really doesn't matter, quite honestly. There is absolutely squat that people who give a damn about this can actually do that will make a difference, because there's far too many people who don't care what the world might be like in a hundred years, as long as they get to live the way they want to right now.
Sure, but then that requires installing a wireless charger in your garage. That's not cheap. Also, touching on the problem that the above post to mine made about living in an apartment and not having anyplace to charge their car, even for apartments that *do* have outlets for resident parking so that it charging an ev overnight is at least possible, I can't think of any place that has wireless charging installed as well.
They also need to be able to charge to afford a respectable range quickly... and it should be as quick and convenient to do so as it is currently to fill up a car with gasoline.
If I have an electric car, but accidentally forget to plug it in overnight when it needs it, I may not even be able to make it to work the next day at all... where with a gasoline car that is too low on gas to get to work, I could just make a brief stop at a gas station on my way there, at a cost of perhaps only an extra 10 minutes.
Electric charging stations need to be about as ubiquitous as existing gas stations, and take about as much time as a gasoline fillup takes before I can really see them being viable for many people.
The intent of such provisions in those contracts is to prevent something that presents a clear conflict of interest. The wording can sometimes be overbroad, but the interpretation is identical. Anything you produce in your own time that does not, or especially if it cannot compete with your employer is none of your employer's business, regardless of the language used by a contract. Suggesting otherwise would otherwise define you, personally, as being the property of that company, and would run afoul of laws prohibiting slavery.
For what it's worth, it is unlikely they would even necessarily know about anything else you did on your own time that did not compete with them because it is in a different field than they are in the first place.
I would say "easily searchable" video would be one which isn't dependent on whether the video has been previously indexed in a particular way. Text searching is fast because you use the exact binary data that you are searching for to find it. It is self-indexed in this respect, while with current technology, video searching is limited to either moving to particular frames, which require that you know the frame number (or time index) that you want in advance, or else are only searchable with additional annotations or metadata that might be provided which cross-reference to particular frames (such as scene indexes that you might find in a dvd menu) However, it is theoretically possible to search through an entire video without any auxiliary metadata using a plain-text description of what you are trying to find, if the searching system has a sophisticated enough AI. For example, "the first scene with harrison ford" in star wars could use face-recognition technology that exists right now to quickly find the scene in the cantina where Obiwan and Luke are negotiating with Han Solo for passage to get to Alderaan. This is just one example where the tech exists right now to achieve this, but the fact that this isn't equally applicable to more general descriptions (eg, "Luke being whiney" corresponding to "But I was going into Tosche Station to pick up some power converters") is not a limitation of the format, but reflective on the current limits of technology.
Perhaps, but I think that is more of a technological limitation than one inherent in the format. Although barring some unexpected technological breakthrough, I don't think we'll necessarily be there in just five years. Maybe 15, however.
Which type of non-compete are you talking about? One where you aren't allowed to compete with the employer while working for that employer, or one where you aren't supposedly allowed to compete with them after leaving them?
They are two entirely different things, and are handled, as they should be, entirely differently.
Perhaps you failed to notice the criteria I had specified, "if they terminate you"... and in general, it would also have to be for reasons entirely unconnected with your performance at work (ie, "dismissed without just cause").
Actually, if they terminate you... as long as you don't steal their clients or give away confidential information you acquired while at your former employer, you can probably simply ignore the non-compete entirely. The entire reason for non-competes is to prevent loss to the company. If you do not do anything in your new job that could cause them loss, then they will have absolutely no legitimate reason to come after you, even if you are doing exactly the same job as you were before.
The only thing that "makes it" so that you ever have to find a whole new type of job when you leave is when you sign a non-compete in the first place (and even then, only in jurisdictions where non-competes are enforceable). In practice, if the employer terminated your employment for whatever reason, then as long as you don't divulge confidential information that you acquired while at your last employer, or cause loss to them by perhaps taking their clients or customers away, they wouldn't have any legitimate reason to come after you anyways... and they may not even try to keep tabs on you after you leave anyways. The entire point of noncompetes is about those two things... it is not to prevent you from seeking available opportunities in your chosen field (and the fact that it might get used that way by some is the reason why they are unenforcible in many jurisdictions... although the company could still come after you for violating confidentiality if they had a reasonable basis for doing so, or for taking their clients away anyways, and so the entire point of a non-compete is actually made moot).
There are no legal precedents that take side with someone knowingly exploiting a computer error to otherwise appear to purchase something for less than what the seller agreed to. The most you will find are cases where people who have made the argument that there was no way for them to actually tell that there really was an error, but not a single case where all evidence pointed to them actually knowing in advance of the transaction, as was clear in this case because the viral post that pointed so many people to the so-called "deal" explicitly said that it was a "price error". If someone wants to make the argument that they didn't hear about the error until after the had "purchased" it for $0, that might even fly... but not if they knew about the error beforehand... and I'd dare say you wouldn't be able to find a single case that says otherwise.
If I were to take a guess, AMC is taking "precisely" to mean the same thing as"accurately", and so if the statement simply accurately (however generally) describes a plot detail (that is, to use your example, the character Joe Blow died) then it meets that definition of "precisely".
Slackware is old, but certainly not a relic. And boasts a stability track-record that most other distros simply do not match. It not only adopts the unix philosophy, but embraces it so fully that the only comparable distros to it in this regard that I know of are Arch and Gentoo. Gentoo is a bit of a bitch because you have to compile everything, which can take a long time when doing system updates, and Arch is regretfully somewhat less stable than Slackware because it updates its packages so frequently (although if you are willing to risk some stability in the interests of running the bleeding edge versions of all available packages, Arch might be right up your alley).
But slackware is still being actively maintained, despite having longer release cycles than most other distros. Slackware is at a release candidate stage for 14.2 in slackware-current at the moment, and I'd be honestly quite surprised if 14.2 wasn't released sometime this summer or fall.
Would you be equally willing to go if you you had every reason to suspect that you would be dead in less than 2 years? Quite possibly even before you arrived on Mars?
If we try to go to Mars with the tech we have now, I anticipate that the journey there alone will have at least a 20% fatality rate, and the mission will have 100% fatality even before the next viable trip comes up to send up more people or supplies.
This contract between the buyer and seller is created by the finalization of a particular sale, but knowingly exploiting a computer error in an automated checkout system to obtain a product for a lower price than the seller wanted to sell it for is not actually a sale in the first place. Any record of the transaction may superficially *LOOK* like a record of a legitimate sale to a third party, but if the buyer has every reasonable basis to *know* (key word there) that there was a mistake in an automated checkout system before the so-called "sale" took place that would allow them to seem to get a product for less than what the seller intended to sell it for, then they cannot legally try and claim later that they had participated in a sale.
The *only* legitimate defense a buyer would have to have any legitimate claim to what they obtained through a transaction where there had been a computer error allowing them to appear to purchase the item for less than the price that the seller intended is to claim that they did not know beforehand that the displayed price was actually an error. If this were a true claim, it would be entirely legitimate, and Microsoft would probably have to suck it up). It is apparent, however, that people knew that this was an error before making the so-called purchase, however, so such a claim would be specious, at best.
Try telling a judge in a court that you *knowingly* tried to exploit an error in computer system that a seller had deployed to acquire a product for a lower price than what the seller intended to sell it for and see if a judge determines that the record of the so-called "sale" is legitimate.
I did explicitly say give the caveat that a second mission would have to be prepared for. My point is that it is technologically possible to implement.
If something happened on mars, it wouldn't matter how prepared we were here, we wouldn't be able to get any assistance to them remotely expediently enough.
But I can plainly see that where we are now, technologically.... we are just not there yet. Those considering this need to completely rethink propulsion and come up with a plan for getting people not only there, but home.... safely and expediently, in time scales measured in hours or a few days at most... not weeks, and certainly not months. Otherwise, any rocket we send them up in may as well be their tomb.
This isn't like the moon... which is at least theoretically close enough that it is at least technologically feasible to orchestrate a rescue mission to bring people home if things go awry, if such provisions are at least planned for... certainly getting people back to earth safely (or sending more supples up) before they starve to death if food supplies were suddenly lost, for example. Mars is, to put it quite bluntly, a fucking ONE WAY TRIP.
Until we have the technology to get to mars in a matter of only a few days or less, I predict that every manned mission to mars that we attempt will have a 100% fatality rate. It is suicide to go there... plain and simple.
Slashdot Mirror
It really doesn't matter, quite honestly. There is absolutely squat that people who give a damn about this can actually do that will make a difference, because there's far too many people who don't care what the world might be like in a hundred years, as long as they get to live the way they want to right now.
Sure, but then that requires installing a wireless charger in your garage. That's not cheap. Also, touching on the problem that the above post to mine made about living in an apartment and not having anyplace to charge their car, even for apartments that *do* have outlets for resident parking so that it charging an ev overnight is at least possible, I can't think of any place that has wireless charging installed as well.
They also need to be able to charge to afford a respectable range quickly... and it should be as quick and convenient to do so as it is currently to fill up a car with gasoline.
If I have an electric car, but accidentally forget to plug it in overnight when it needs it, I may not even be able to make it to work the next day at all... where with a gasoline car that is too low on gas to get to work, I could just make a brief stop at a gas station on my way there, at a cost of perhaps only an extra 10 minutes.
Electric charging stations need to be about as ubiquitous as existing gas stations, and take about as much time as a gasoline fillup takes before I can really see them being viable for many people.
The intent of such provisions in those contracts is to prevent something that presents a clear conflict of interest. The wording can sometimes be overbroad, but the interpretation is identical. Anything you produce in your own time that does not, or especially if it cannot compete with your employer is none of your employer's business, regardless of the language used by a contract. Suggesting otherwise would otherwise define you, personally, as being the property of that company, and would run afoul of laws prohibiting slavery.
For what it's worth, it is unlikely they would even necessarily know about anything else you did on your own time that did not compete with them because it is in a different field than they are in the first place.
... it's changing an email address that you've had for nearly 2 decades.
I would say "easily searchable" video would be one which isn't dependent on whether the video has been previously indexed in a particular way. Text searching is fast because you use the exact binary data that you are searching for to find it. It is self-indexed in this respect, while with current technology, video searching is limited to either moving to particular frames, which require that you know the frame number (or time index) that you want in advance, or else are only searchable with additional annotations or metadata that might be provided which cross-reference to particular frames (such as scene indexes that you might find in a dvd menu) However, it is theoretically possible to search through an entire video without any auxiliary metadata using a plain-text description of what you are trying to find, if the searching system has a sophisticated enough AI. For example, "the first scene with harrison ford" in star wars could use face-recognition technology that exists right now to quickly find the scene in the cantina where Obiwan and Luke are negotiating with Han Solo for passage to get to Alderaan. This is just one example where the tech exists right now to achieve this, but the fact that this isn't equally applicable to more general descriptions (eg, "Luke being whiney" corresponding to "But I was going into Tosche Station to pick up some power converters") is not a limitation of the format, but reflective on the current limits of technology.
Perhaps, but I think that is more of a technological limitation than one inherent in the format. Although barring some unexpected technological breakthrough, I don't think we'll necessarily be there in just five years. Maybe 15, however.
Although yeah... I think it's a dumb idea too... but this point isn't necessarily going to be as true in 5 years as it is now.
They are two entirely different things, and are handled, as they should be, entirely differently.
Perhaps you failed to notice the criteria I had specified, "if they terminate you"... and in general, it would also have to be for reasons entirely unconnected with your performance at work (ie, "dismissed without just cause").
Actually, if they terminate you... as long as you don't steal their clients or give away confidential information you acquired while at your former employer, you can probably simply ignore the non-compete entirely. The entire reason for non-competes is to prevent loss to the company. If you do not do anything in your new job that could cause them loss, then they will have absolutely no legitimate reason to come after you, even if you are doing exactly the same job as you were before.
The only thing that "makes it" so that you ever have to find a whole new type of job when you leave is when you sign a non-compete in the first place (and even then, only in jurisdictions where non-competes are enforceable). In practice, if the employer terminated your employment for whatever reason, then as long as you don't divulge confidential information that you acquired while at your last employer, or cause loss to them by perhaps taking their clients or customers away, they wouldn't have any legitimate reason to come after you anyways... and they may not even try to keep tabs on you after you leave anyways. The entire point of noncompetes is about those two things... it is not to prevent you from seeking available opportunities in your chosen field (and the fact that it might get used that way by some is the reason why they are unenforcible in many jurisdictions... although the company could still come after you for violating confidentiality if they had a reasonable basis for doing so, or for taking their clients away anyways, and so the entire point of a non-compete is actually made moot).
I saw what you did there.
Well, I said it was just a guess. I honestly have no idea how else they could interpret a general description of plot details as being "precise".
Only if you consider "zero" to be countless.
There are no legal precedents that take side with someone knowingly exploiting a computer error to otherwise appear to purchase something for less than what the seller agreed to. The most you will find are cases where people who have made the argument that there was no way for them to actually tell that there really was an error, but not a single case where all evidence pointed to them actually knowing in advance of the transaction, as was clear in this case because the viral post that pointed so many people to the so-called "deal" explicitly said that it was a "price error". If someone wants to make the argument that they didn't hear about the error until after the had "purchased" it for $0, that might even fly... but not if they knew about the error beforehand... and I'd dare say you wouldn't be able to find a single case that says otherwise.
If I were to take a guess, AMC is taking "precisely" to mean the same thing as"accurately", and so if the statement simply accurately (however generally) describes a plot detail (that is, to use your example, the character Joe Blow died) then it meets that definition of "precisely".
Did they sign an NDA??? No? Then they aren't doing anything wrong by publish plot details that they never agreed to keep private in the first place.
Although giving the matter the further thought, maybe AMC is just trying to use the publicity of this lawsuit to generate more interest in their show.
Old does not mean bad.
Slackware is old, but certainly not a relic. And boasts a stability track-record that most other distros simply do not match. It not only adopts the unix philosophy, but embraces it so fully that the only comparable distros to it in this regard that I know of are Arch and Gentoo. Gentoo is a bit of a bitch because you have to compile everything, which can take a long time when doing system updates, and Arch is regretfully somewhat less stable than Slackware because it updates its packages so frequently (although if you are willing to risk some stability in the interests of running the bleeding edge versions of all available packages, Arch might be right up your alley).
But slackware is still being actively maintained, despite having longer release cycles than most other distros. Slackware is at a release candidate stage for 14.2 in slackware-current at the moment, and I'd be honestly quite surprised if 14.2 wasn't released sometime this summer or fall.
Would you be equally willing to go if you you had every reason to suspect that you would be dead in less than 2 years? Quite possibly even before you arrived on Mars?
If we try to go to Mars with the tech we have now, I anticipate that the journey there alone will have at least a 20% fatality rate, and the mission will have 100% fatality even before the next viable trip comes up to send up more people or supplies.
This contract between the buyer and seller is created by the finalization of a particular sale, but knowingly exploiting a computer error in an automated checkout system to obtain a product for a lower price than the seller wanted to sell it for is not actually a sale in the first place. Any record of the transaction may superficially *LOOK* like a record of a legitimate sale to a third party, but if the buyer has every reasonable basis to *know* (key word there) that there was a mistake in an automated checkout system before the so-called "sale" took place that would allow them to seem to get a product for less than what the seller intended to sell it for, then they cannot legally try and claim later that they had participated in a sale.
The *only* legitimate defense a buyer would have to have any legitimate claim to what they obtained through a transaction where there had been a computer error allowing them to appear to purchase the item for less than the price that the seller intended is to claim that they did not know beforehand that the displayed price was actually an error. If this were a true claim, it would be entirely legitimate, and Microsoft would probably have to suck it up). It is apparent, however, that people knew that this was an error before making the so-called purchase, however, so such a claim would be specious, at best.
Try telling a judge in a court that you *knowingly* tried to exploit an error in computer system that a seller had deployed to acquire a product for a lower price than what the seller intended to sell it for and see if a judge determines that the record of the so-called "sale" is legitimate.
I did explicitly say give the caveat that a second mission would have to be prepared for. My point is that it is technologically possible to implement.
If something happened on mars, it wouldn't matter how prepared we were here, we wouldn't be able to get any assistance to them remotely expediently enough.
So do I, to be perfectly honest.
But I can plainly see that where we are now, technologically.... we are just not there yet. Those considering this need to completely rethink propulsion and come up with a plan for getting people not only there, but home.... safely and expediently, in time scales measured in hours or a few days at most... not weeks, and certainly not months. Otherwise, any rocket we send them up in may as well be their tomb.
Nice understatement there fella.
This isn't like the moon... which is at least theoretically close enough that it is at least technologically feasible to orchestrate a rescue mission to bring people home if things go awry, if such provisions are at least planned for... certainly getting people back to earth safely (or sending more supples up) before they starve to death if food supplies were suddenly lost, for example. Mars is, to put it quite bluntly, a fucking ONE WAY TRIP.
Until we have the technology to get to mars in a matter of only a few days or less, I predict that every manned mission to mars that we attempt will have a 100% fatality rate. It is suicide to go there... plain and simple.
That really powerful laser guns will finally make a "pew! pew! pew!" noise like they do in movies?