On absolutely *any* finite sample, while the statistical frequency of either option approaches exactly 50% as the sample grows, ironically the statistical difference between the sizes of the two possible outcomes also grows, albeit at vast below sublinear level, so the asymptotic limit of the probability of either outcome is still exactly 50%. As the number of samples grows, the difference between them becomes statistically insignificant relative to the actual number of samples, but after absolutely any finite number oif samples, if the number of samples was extremely large, that difference can still be a very large number as well in any kind of absolute sense. This "statistically insignificant" remainder could be the matter that we have in the universe from an incomprehensibly larger amount of matter and antimatter that were created by the big bang.
If you have an exactly 50% chance of something occurring, over any finite sample, the probability that there will be equal amounts of the two possibles becomes quite small as the sample grows very large.
I have long since believed that the matter that we have in the universe is just the statistically insignificant remainder from an unfathomably larger amount of matter and antimatter that annihilated each other after the big bang..
Even assuming a *perfectly* balanced coin, the number of heads is not going to generally be *exactly* the same as the number of tails over a large number of flips. The difference between them might be statistically insignificant, but it's still there...
Similarly, the matter that we have in the universe today might just be the statistically insignificant leftover excess matter that happened to not get annihilated when approximately equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created.
I know what it is that I mean for the program to do, but sometimes will type exactly the opposite, all the while continuing to read it the way that I meant it. Even putting an assert in will not help because in close proximity to where I've accidentally created this kind of inverted condition, it is unfortunately quite likely I will repeat the mistake. And again, when I make these kinds of mistakes, I cannot easily feel nd them on my own because I see the code I thought I wrote instead of what is necessarily actually there.
Uh... sure, but that book is about breaking laws in other jurisdictions. Of course it can sometimes be very easy to break a law of some place that you don't necessarily reside in and don't know the law of that place, but it's not particularly easy for the cops from that location to come to your door and arrest you for such a crime either.
So my question remains open... can it even begin to be substantiated that it is so similarly simple to commit crimes in the jurisdiction in which you reside and for which evidence exists of the crime having been committed, such that cops coming into your home and seeing such evidence could arrest you for it?
Here is news for you: It is basically impossible to not commit crimes these days.
Even if you accept this premise as true, which I do not, I would very much like to see even an iota of substantiation for this argument as it pertains specifically to crimes that are not only "basically impossible" to avoid, but also crimes that one might only do privately because they would risk legal ramifications if law enforcement knew about them, since that is really the only kind of crimes that the so-called "legal trouble" would pertain to for something like this.
How is this opening up users into getting into legal trouble if said user wasn't actually doing anything against the law before the watch contacted first responders?
I thought maybe this was about something to do with an automated call to emergency services without human intervention, but no.... the legal trouble that the article mentions, of all things, is that when the police come in, they could find prohibited substances in the premises??? Stuff that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place?
For fuck sake, I have *ZERO* sympathy for a person who gets caught breaking the law, even in the otherwise ordinarily private space of their own home, when they wouldn't otherwise be caught just because nobody else knows about it...
.... does *NOT* relinquish copyright ownership. They still have control over who is allowed to make copies to the fullest extent that copyright permits (which is the very thing that makes the GPL work in the first place), and while they can withdraw that permission from anyone they wish at any time, there is nothing they can do to stop someone from making a fork of the work in the state that it was in *BEFORE* permission to copy was withdrawn, since the license that applied to it at the time gave them permission to do so.
So yes, a copyright holder *CAN* ask that their code contributions be removed from a GPL project, but in practice, this isn't going to amount to much because of the ability for a person who had received a GPL licensed work to freely make forks of the work they received anyways.
Wouldn't that be the case only if you are downloading infringing content in the first place?
Seems like it could prove your innocence just as easily, if you happened to be sharing a torrent that was legal for you to distribute, but someone flagged your IP as suspicious for some reason or another.
Either you don't have any kids yet, or it's been a long time since you've had any and you aren't yet a grandparent.
Gone are the days where ultrasound resembles an image you might see on a sonar display in a military submarine. Today you can get computer generated images of a 3d model produced from the ultrasound data that nobody would have any trouble identifying.
Google "3d ultrasound", and you'll see what I mean.
I imagine that theoretically, you could probably even make a model file to 3d-print, although that might be a bit creepy for some people.
Lying would require that he knew, at the time that he said it, that the statement was untrue.
Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
You may have grounds to say that he's incompetent, but there is no reason to think that his claims were anything but something said in haste that was not given appropriate consideration before saying aloud.
Legally speaking, it is literally impossible to commit fraud unintentionally.
The legal definition of fraud requires that there exist some evidence to indicate intent to trick, deceive, or be dishonest.
Legally speaking, you cannot commit fraud unintentionally.
Now you could argue that his carelessly saying such a thing could constitute gross negligence to his obligations as CEO, but that's not the same thing as fraud.
As the AC has pointed out, among the most significant is the existence of water, which when we last visited the moon, was thought to be entirely absent.
Even putting aside how important water is for life, this also means that you can make hydrogen fuel and oxygen to breath from the the resources that are right there. The moon would make a *FAR* easier place to launch rockets from than Earth, having only a little less than one sixth of the gravity. An orbiting platform may also accomplish this, but then every single thing that is needed for construction would have to be launched into orbit as well, so you end up using far more fuel than you would with a ground-based construction.
No both copyright holders and trademark holders must defend their IP
You are mistaken. Trademark holders do, but there is absolutely no requirement that copyright holders do likewise. At most it sitting on a known copyright infringement without taking action may limit or even entirely block the damages that the copyright holder could collect for that particular infringement, but it would not at all impact one's ability to sue for later infringements by different parties, as would be the case for not taking action on a trademark violation.
And even if this *were* being alleged to be a trademark violation, they could probably rightfully claim nominal use of the trademark and be done with it (as long as they also explicitly said that it was not endorsed by CBS or Paramount, etc).
CBS has published fan art guidelines for Star Trek, so I would suggest that they continue to appeal to those to keep the project going, unless or until CBS can tell them explicitly how it is not in accordance with those guidelines, they should reasonably be able to continue to use those guidelines as a defense.
Even assuming you were right, I would suggest that the principle of abandoned property would still apply. America would have to go back to reassert such ownership.
Gravity is proportional to mass (which itself is proportional to the radius cubed), and inversely proportional to the square of the radius, so assuming otherwise identical composition, gravitational pull at the surface increases roughly linearly with the diameter of the planet.
Slashdot Mirror
On absolutely *any* finite sample, while the statistical frequency of either option approaches exactly 50% as the sample grows, ironically the statistical difference between the sizes of the two possible outcomes also grows, albeit at vast below sublinear level, so the asymptotic limit of the probability of either outcome is still exactly 50%. As the number of samples grows, the difference between them becomes statistically insignificant relative to the actual number of samples, but after absolutely any finite number oif samples, if the number of samples was extremely large, that difference can still be a very large number as well in any kind of absolute sense. This "statistically insignificant" remainder could be the matter that we have in the universe from an incomprehensibly larger amount of matter and antimatter that were created by the big bang.
I have long since believed that the matter that we have in the universe is just the statistically insignificant remainder from an unfathomably larger amount of matter and antimatter that annihilated each other after the big bang..
Similarly, the matter that we have in the universe today might just be the statistically insignificant leftover excess matter that happened to not get annihilated when approximately equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created.
I know what it is that I mean for the program to do, but sometimes will type exactly the opposite, all the while continuing to read it the way that I meant it. Even putting an assert in will not help because in close proximity to where I've accidentally created this kind of inverted condition, it is unfortunately quite likely I will repeat the mistake. And again, when I make these kinds of mistakes, I cannot easily feel nd them on my own because I see the code I thought I wrote instead of what is necessarily actually there.
Uh... sure, but that book is about breaking laws in other jurisdictions. Of course it can sometimes be very easy to break a law of some place that you don't necessarily reside in and don't know the law of that place, but it's not particularly easy for the cops from that location to come to your door and arrest you for such a crime either.
So my question remains open... can it even begin to be substantiated that it is so similarly simple to commit crimes in the jurisdiction in which you reside and for which evidence exists of the crime having been committed, such that cops coming into your home and seeing such evidence could arrest you for it?
Are you seriously comparing human rights to marijuana use?
Even if you accept this premise as true, which I do not, I would very much like to see even an iota of substantiation for this argument as it pertains specifically to crimes that are not only "basically impossible" to avoid, but also crimes that one might only do privately because they would risk legal ramifications if law enforcement knew about them, since that is really the only kind of crimes that the so-called "legal trouble" would pertain to for something like this.
How is this opening up users into getting into legal trouble if said user wasn't actually doing anything against the law before the watch contacted first responders?
I thought maybe this was about something to do with an automated call to emergency services without human intervention, but no.... the legal trouble that the article mentions, of all things, is that when the police come in, they could find prohibited substances in the premises??? Stuff that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place?
For fuck sake, I have *ZERO* sympathy for a person who gets caught breaking the law, even in the otherwise ordinarily private space of their own home, when they wouldn't otherwise be caught just because nobody else knows about it...
So yes, a copyright holder *CAN* ask that their code contributions be removed from a GPL project, but in practice, this isn't going to amount to much because of the ability for a person who had received a GPL licensed work to freely make forks of the work they received anyways.
"...Use another iPhone and phone call or FaceTime call the target iPhone..."
I don't think there's a way to identify what the phone number of a random iPhone is without unlocking it first, is there?
Examples
Wouldn't that be the case only if you are downloading infringing content in the first place?
Seems like it could prove your innocence just as easily, if you happened to be sharing a torrent that was legal for you to distribute, but someone flagged your IP as suspicious for some reason or another.
Just sayin'...
Either you don't have any kids yet, or it's been a long time since you've had any and you aren't yet a grandparent.
Gone are the days where ultrasound resembles an image you might see on a sonar display in a military submarine. Today you can get computer generated images of a 3d model produced from the ultrasound data that nobody would have any trouble identifying.
Google "3d ultrasound", and you'll see what I mean.
I imagine that theoretically, you could probably even make a model file to 3d-print, although that might be a bit creepy for some people.
The concept of "ownership" itself is created by human law and not natural law...
By natural law, I don't own my house whenever I leave it to go to work, for instance.
Like exclusivity, for instance?
Copyright infringement literally does deprive the copyright holder of the exclusivity of control over who is allowed to make copies, after all..
But of course, that exclusivity is intangible, and therefore cannot be argued to be of any real worth, right?
Lying would require that he knew, at the time that he said it, that the statement was untrue.
Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
You may have grounds to say that he's incompetent, but there is no reason to think that his claims were anything but something said in haste that was not given appropriate consideration before saying aloud.
Legally speaking, it is literally impossible to commit fraud unintentionally.
The legal definition of fraud requires that there exist some evidence to indicate intent to trick, deceive, or be dishonest.
Legally speaking, you cannot commit fraud unintentionally.
Now you could argue that his carelessly saying such a thing could constitute gross negligence to his obligations as CEO, but that's not the same thing as fraud.
As the AC has pointed out, among the most significant is the existence of water, which when we last visited the moon, was thought to be entirely absent.
Even putting aside how important water is for life, this also means that you can make hydrogen fuel and oxygen to breath from the the resources that are right there. The moon would make a *FAR* easier place to launch rockets from than Earth, having only a little less than one sixth of the gravity. An orbiting platform may also accomplish this, but then every single thing that is needed for construction would have to be launched into orbit as well, so you end up using far more fuel than you would with a ground-based construction.
You are mistaken. Trademark holders do, but there is absolutely no requirement that copyright holders do likewise. At most it sitting on a known copyright infringement without taking action may limit or even entirely block the damages that the copyright holder could collect for that particular infringement, but it would not at all impact one's ability to sue for later infringements by different parties, as would be the case for not taking action on a trademark violation.
And even if this *were* being alleged to be a trademark violation, they could probably rightfully claim nominal use of the trademark and be done with it (as long as they also explicitly said that it was not endorsed by CBS or Paramount, etc).
You are thinking of trademark law. Copyright law has no such requirement.
Trademark would not be impacted by this project because this project could reasonably claim nominal use.
Something's amiss there...
CBS has published fan art guidelines for Star Trek, so I would suggest that they continue to appeal to those to keep the project going, unless or until CBS can tell them explicitly how it is not in accordance with those guidelines, they should reasonably be able to continue to use those guidelines as a defense.
What has changed is what we know, and how certain things about what we know that could make the moon a worthwhile place to go.
Even assuming you were right, I would suggest that the principle of abandoned property would still apply. America would have to go back to reassert such ownership.
What, did it escape into space or something?
Because otherwise, regardless of its form, all of that mass is still here, on earth.
Seriously.... the principles of conservation of matter and energy is like grade 5 or 6 science class stuff.
Gravity is proportional to mass (which itself is proportional to the radius cubed), and inversely proportional to the square of the radius, so assuming otherwise identical composition, gravitational pull at the surface increases roughly linearly with the diameter of the planet.