Or, one could try just being honest with their partner, and ending the relationship if that's where it needs to go. if infidelity is an option, why isn't divorce?
... for people to be fucking honest with their life partner, and just tell them that they want to sleep with somebody else? Heck, maybe their partner would like to sleep with other people too, and they can have a so-called "open relationship". If that's not the case, then for fuck's sake, if they didn't really want to *BE* monogamous, then why the hell did they sign up for something that is *SUPPOSED* to be monogamous in the first place?
My sympathy for people whose names may have been revealed in this data breach is exactly zero.
A tactic that doesn't work at all if your opponent happens to be the applicable type of lawyer, or has one for a brother, spouse, or something similar.
A car doesn't get 1000 miles on a tank of gasoline, obviously... the difference is caused by the fact that an electric engine is much more efficient at utilizing energy than a gasoline powered one.
And that 85khw represents perhaps only about a fifth of the work that you can get out of a full tank of gasoline
I remember working it out once that if you wanted to fully recharge a hypothetical car battery in about the same amount of time it took to fill up a car with gas, and you wanted the battery to be able to move a 1000kg car as far as about a full tank of gas would go at the same speeds, to fully recharge in that short a time span would require a power output on the order of no less than 10 megawatts.
We say we'd be happy with a robot that could clean our homes. They made one that does some of that
Emphasis on *SOME*....
In general, keeping a home clean entails a whole lot more than just vacuuming an area that is already free of clutter. It entails keeping the area free of clutter in the first place... This requires that a robot know where everything in the house belongs when it is put away, and will automatically clean and put things away that are left unattended for a sufficiently long period of time. Obviously, it should also know how to do this in a manner that does not in any way jeopardize the health or well-being of the occupants.
"We say we'd be happy with a robot that can clean our homes...." show me one that actually *CAN* clean my home, and we'll talk. Really, an oversized hockey-puck that can only vacuum one floor, can't do stairs, doesn't always cope well with pet fur, and can't figure out that just because it doesn't fit into an area right now because of how things happened to be positioned doesn't mean it shouldn't be vacuumed doesn't cover even half of the job of vacuuming for a lot of people, myself included, and probably not even a tenth of the total job of keeping a place clean and tidy. Forget about expecting cooking or driving kids to school or babysitting them or whatnot.... You claim that people are going to give AI a moving target when it comes to the matter of a robot housekeeper, how about just hitting the fucking original desired target of actually just keeping a house clean?
Some fuel stations supporting fast charges will likely exist but they will not be common
So what you're saying is that nobody will ever bother using electric cars to drive 1000 miles in a day?
Fast recharging stations are going to need to be more than uncommon to viably support long distance road travel. Maybe they don't need to be as common as gas stations are right now, but probably not even an order of magnitude less. That's still one heckuva lot...
We are putting up with gasoline for so long because the overall convenience of utilization of fully electric vehicles has not yet reached the same levels as gasoline.
My wife owns a Tesla. She won't let me drive it....
Dude, wtf? Is your driving really that terrible that nobody with an ounce of sense trusts you to drive their car, or are you saying something that's probably more than anyone here needed to know about the state of your marriage? I don't know which is worse for you, honestly.
I was under the impression that one of the main reasons you can't charge a battery in an electric car as fast as you can fill one up with gas is that even *IF* the battery allowed for theoretically instant recharging, you still couldn't draw enough power from the grid to get enough energy to saturate the battery in that time.
Both men stand accused of distributing knowledge and guides on how to obtain illegal content online
That what they were distributing was information on how to break the law is wholly irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is that they were sill ultimately arrested for distributing knowledge... effectively making legislating what people are allowed to even *THINK* about.
Of course, most people won't even be able to *afford* to get a "new shiny", and many will generally have to settle for a phone model that is at least 4 years old. Cell phone providers will realize that many people aren't getting the newer and more expensive phones and will come out with a "phone loan" plan for people to bring down the monthly payments on those phones to more affordable levels. The phone loan will not be tied to the cell phone service plan, so once the loan is paid off, a person's monthly payments really *WILL* go down, but by that time the phone they have will be getting old and tired (not holding a charge the way it did when the phone was brand new, for instance) and in all likelihood they will want to get a newer model... and they will get another phone loan.
No, what it is going to do is cause these cell phone companies to also sell "phone loans" to customers who want one of the newer or more expensive phones so that the monthly payments are more affordable.
The period of the phone loan will be of the same duration (or longer) than the contracts for subsidized phones were, so the monthly payments on them will be miniscule. If you want to switch providers before you've paid your phone off, you can.... but you will still need to finish paying the loan.
... so people who want the latest and greatest phone but don't happen to have that kind of money burning a hole in their pocket to spend all at once can still get what they want. Oh, and these loans will be 3 to 5 years long.
They use the word "affordable" in such a way that leads me to suspect they are talking more about what a large company's version of "affordable" would be as opposed to someone who has to live on a somewhat more limited budget.
Now if CBC can be sued successfully for using the material after buying a license they had no reason to believe was invalid, this also means that if you buy a computer with Windows pre-installed, and this later turns out to be a pirated copy, MS may sue you for damages.
We're not talking about a license that CBC had no reason to believe was invalid, however.... we're talking about a license that they are alleged to have knowingly exceeded. If CBC had not used the material outside of the period that they believed they had paid a license for, then all of the liability for their damages for using the infringing material clearly falls to CNN. Further, since CNN had absolutely no authorization to give them a license at all, the court may decide that the duration of the contract between them was actually irrelevant to the matter of copyright infringement, since CNN had no legal authorization to grant a license in the first place, and if CBC were actually using the content for much longer than their so-called "license" allowed, CNN may be on the hook for the entire duration of CBC's infringement. This may happen to work to CBC's benefit even though they would have been acting in bad faith for that period, is is only because CNN was attempting to create a contract that was illegal in the first place, and the law has absolutely no responsibility to uphold illegal contracts, even if the parties sincerely believed that they were legal.
Reread what I wrote....when talking about the Halting Problem, I specifically used the words "general purpose programmable computer. " The allegation that the halting problem is solvable for certain subsets of algorithms is a non-sequitur at best, and a strawman at worst.
But even if you try and make your computer into a fixed function device, it may still be used for purposes that were unintended. Trying to output error messages for every invalid input is not really possible because the search space for inputs is never actually finite, and the device cannot always tell if it is actually being used outside of its normal operational parameters. There is no provable way for such a system to detect that it is being used in a way that is unintended without incorporating more sophisticated technologies into the device that would expose the device to even more attack vectors than they could likely close (some of which do not even exist yet, such as a general purpose AI that can know at least as well as any human could given the same information when absolutely any operating condition is not as expected).
CBC should be let off for using the YouTube video for the 10 days they had a license for. They should be prosecuted for using the video after the license expired
The duration of the so-called contract between CBC and CNN is entirely irrelevant to matter of damages for copyright infringement payable to the copyright holder by the CBC if CNN had no permission to authorize the CBC to use the video clip in the first place. The most that it might matter is that it would affect what percentage of CBC's damages could be reclaimed by CBC when they sue CNN for misrepresenting that they could authorize use of that video.
That said, I am personally somewhat suspicious of Cutia's claim that CBC was using the video for "months" when CBC themselves is reported to have claimed to have licensed it for only 10 days, because such a testimony by the CBC would be so utterly self-damning, it is inconceivable they would ever have said it if they had really been using it for months. Again, it is apparently CBC's own testimony that they had licensed the video for 10 days.... If they had actually been using for much longer than that period, and surely they knew how they had been using it, or else they would not have been in the position to even make the statement about the precise duration of their so-called license in the first place, then why would they have not at least claimed they had licensed it for that much longer period? Their claim simply does not make any sense in that context... Barring any further evidence that clearly shows the contrary, the only thing that really makes sense at this time, with the information we have so far is to conclude either that the reporter's claim of CBC's testimony of the duration of their contract to use the video is inaccurate, or else that Cutia's allegation they had been using it much longer is actually false.
A watch's primary purpose is to tell time, and this function should be available continuously, at *ALL* times, even without pressing any buttons on it, and without impacting battery life.
Speaking of battery life, I would also need an estimated battery life of 3 to 5 years of typical operation, using one of already commonly available watch battery form factors, and so can be easily replaced by the user.
Also, water resistant to at least a few meters.
No? Then I'll stick to my $40 Casio which isn't really just a smart-phone accessory in disguise.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm suggesting that people take responsibility for themselves and have some goddamn fucking integrity, and somehow *I'M* an idiot?
I think perhaps it is you that doesn't get it.
Or, one could try just being honest with their partner, and ending the relationship if that's where it needs to go. if infidelity is an option, why isn't divorce?
Really, is honesty too much to expect?
I'm thinking that you didn't actually read the post you responded to.... or even the title of it, for that matter.
My sympathy for people whose names may have been revealed in this data breach is exactly zero.
A tactic that doesn't work at all if your opponent happens to be the applicable type of lawyer, or has one for a brother, spouse, or something similar.
A car doesn't get 1000 miles on a tank of gasoline, obviously... the difference is caused by the fact that an electric engine is much more efficient at utilizing energy than a gasoline powered one.
And that 85khw represents perhaps only about a fifth of the work that you can get out of a full tank of gasoline
I remember working it out once that if you wanted to fully recharge a hypothetical car battery in about the same amount of time it took to fill up a car with gas, and you wanted the battery to be able to move a 1000kg car as far as about a full tank of gas would go at the same speeds, to fully recharge in that short a time span would require a power output on the order of no less than 10 megawatts.
Emphasis on *SOME*....
In general, keeping a home clean entails a whole lot more than just vacuuming an area that is already free of clutter. It entails keeping the area free of clutter in the first place... This requires that a robot know where everything in the house belongs when it is put away, and will automatically clean and put things away that are left unattended for a sufficiently long period of time. Obviously, it should also know how to do this in a manner that does not in any way jeopardize the health or well-being of the occupants.
"We say we'd be happy with a robot that can clean our homes...." show me one that actually *CAN* clean my home, and we'll talk. Really, an oversized hockey-puck that can only vacuum one floor, can't do stairs, doesn't always cope well with pet fur, and can't figure out that just because it doesn't fit into an area right now because of how things happened to be positioned doesn't mean it shouldn't be vacuumed doesn't cover even half of the job of vacuuming for a lot of people, myself included, and probably not even a tenth of the total job of keeping a place clean and tidy. Forget about expecting cooking or driving kids to school or babysitting them or whatnot.... You claim that people are going to give AI a moving target when it comes to the matter of a robot housekeeper, how about just hitting the fucking original desired target of actually just keeping a house clean?
So what you're saying is that nobody will ever bother using electric cars to drive 1000 miles in a day?
Fast recharging stations are going to need to be more than uncommon to viably support long distance road travel. Maybe they don't need to be as common as gas stations are right now, but probably not even an order of magnitude less. That's still one heckuva lot...
We are putting up with gasoline for so long because the overall convenience of utilization of fully electric vehicles has not yet reached the same levels as gasoline.
Dude, wtf? Is your driving really that terrible that nobody with an ounce of sense trusts you to drive their car, or are you saying something that's probably more than anyone here needed to know about the state of your marriage? I don't know which is worse for you, honestly.
I was under the impression that one of the main reasons you can't charge a battery in an electric car as fast as you can fill one up with gas is that even *IF* the battery allowed for theoretically instant recharging, you still couldn't draw enough power from the grid to get enough energy to saturate the battery in that time.
That what they were distributing was information on how to break the law is wholly irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is that they were sill ultimately arrested for distributing knowledge... effectively making legislating what people are allowed to even *THINK* about.
Of course, most people won't even be able to *afford* to get a "new shiny", and many will generally have to settle for a phone model that is at least 4 years old. Cell phone providers will realize that many people aren't getting the newer and more expensive phones and will come out with a "phone loan" plan for people to bring down the monthly payments on those phones to more affordable levels. The phone loan will not be tied to the cell phone service plan, so once the loan is paid off, a person's monthly payments really *WILL* go down, but by that time the phone they have will be getting old and tired (not holding a charge the way it did when the phone was brand new, for instance) and in all likelihood they will want to get a newer model... and they will get another phone loan.
No, what it is going to do is cause these cell phone companies to also sell "phone loans" to customers who want one of the newer or more expensive phones so that the monthly payments are more affordable.
The period of the phone loan will be of the same duration (or longer) than the contracts for subsidized phones were, so the monthly payments on them will be miniscule. If you want to switch providers before you've paid your phone off, you can.... but you will still need to finish paying the loan.
... so people who want the latest and greatest phone but don't happen to have that kind of money burning a hole in their pocket to spend all at once can still get what they want. Oh, and these loans will be 3 to 5 years long.
They use the word "affordable" in such a way that leads me to suspect they are talking more about what a large company's version of "affordable" would be as opposed to someone who has to live on a somewhat more limited budget.
Now the theme to Pinky and the Brain is stuck in my head. Even less conducive to getting work done than reading Slashdot.
And just now my coworker next to me just asked why I whispered "Narf".
Your choice of comparison is poor.
Animated SVG is neither obscure or inconvenient, and is widely supported on many modern browsers.
If you want vector graphics, there's always SVG. Which can also be animated, by the way.
Since when is physical hacking no longer considered hacking? Ever hear of hotwiring?
We're not talking about a license that CBC had no reason to believe was invalid, however.... we're talking about a license that they are alleged to have knowingly exceeded. If CBC had not used the material outside of the period that they believed they had paid a license for, then all of the liability for their damages for using the infringing material clearly falls to CNN. Further, since CNN had absolutely no authorization to give them a license at all, the court may decide that the duration of the contract between them was actually irrelevant to the matter of copyright infringement, since CNN had no legal authorization to grant a license in the first place, and if CBC were actually using the content for much longer than their so-called "license" allowed, CNN may be on the hook for the entire duration of CBC's infringement. This may happen to work to CBC's benefit even though they would have been acting in bad faith for that period, is is only because CNN was attempting to create a contract that was illegal in the first place, and the law has absolutely no responsibility to uphold illegal contracts, even if the parties sincerely believed that they were legal.
Reread what I wrote....when talking about the Halting Problem, I specifically used the words "general purpose programmable computer. " The allegation that the halting problem is solvable for certain subsets of algorithms is a non-sequitur at best, and a strawman at worst.
But even if you try and make your computer into a fixed function device, it may still be used for purposes that were unintended. Trying to output error messages for every invalid input is not really possible because the search space for inputs is never actually finite, and the device cannot always tell if it is actually being used outside of its normal operational parameters. There is no provable way for such a system to detect that it is being used in a way that is unintended without incorporating more sophisticated technologies into the device that would expose the device to even more attack vectors than they could likely close (some of which do not even exist yet, such as a general purpose AI that can know at least as well as any human could given the same information when absolutely any operating condition is not as expected).
The duration of the so-called contract between CBC and CNN is entirely irrelevant to matter of damages for copyright infringement payable to the copyright holder by the CBC if CNN had no permission to authorize the CBC to use the video clip in the first place. The most that it might matter is that it would affect what percentage of CBC's damages could be reclaimed by CBC when they sue CNN for misrepresenting that they could authorize use of that video.
That said, I am personally somewhat suspicious of Cutia's claim that CBC was using the video for "months" when CBC themselves is reported to have claimed to have licensed it for only 10 days, because such a testimony by the CBC would be so utterly self-damning, it is inconceivable they would ever have said it if they had really been using it for months. Again, it is apparently CBC's own testimony that they had licensed the video for 10 days.... If they had actually been using for much longer than that period, and surely they knew how they had been using it, or else they would not have been in the position to even make the statement about the precise duration of their so-called license in the first place, then why would they have not at least claimed they had licensed it for that much longer period? Their claim simply does not make any sense in that context... Barring any further evidence that clearly shows the contrary, the only thing that really makes sense at this time, with the information we have so far is to conclude either that the reporter's claim of CBC's testimony of the duration of their contract to use the video is inaccurate, or else that Cutia's allegation they had been using it much longer is actually false.
A watch's primary purpose is to tell time, and this function should be available continuously, at *ALL* times, even without pressing any buttons on it, and without impacting battery life.
Speaking of battery life, I would also need an estimated battery life of 3 to 5 years of typical operation, using one of already commonly available watch battery form factors, and so can be easily replaced by the user.
Also, water resistant to at least a few meters.
No? Then I'll stick to my $40 Casio which isn't really just a smart-phone accessory in disguise.