True, but most people who are suicdal do not genuinely want to die as much as they would rather want their living circumstances just to be different from whatever they are
Yeah. It wouldnâ(TM)t stop drivers from being dumb, because it wouldnâ(TM)t be able to tell the difference between a passenger and a driver, but it could still mitigate pedestrian accidents caused by them not being aware of their surroundings
.... at least some of the cases for pedestrians by using the camera in-game to watch the user as he plays, and measuring what percentage of the time the end user is looking at the screen while the device is in motion at low speeds (ie, walking). If the user is walking for more than a few seconds without looking away from the screen at all in that time, then the game would pause for a second, and a voice would firmly tell the player to watch where they are going, as well as a visible warning on the screen to accompany it. The game would then resume as normal. If a user doesn't give the app permission to access the camera, then it doesn't work at all while the user is moving, and should inform the user to that effect (probably at the startup screen).
Yeah, the camera drains the battery faster, but it's just a friggen *game* for crying out loud.
I didn't mean to suggest that it is irrelevant to how people might feel they ought to vote, I suggested only that it is irrelevant to the fact that if enough people voted for an independent candidate, then the USA would, in fact, get an independent president.
It may certainly be true that much of the USA population is so far led by the notion that any independent vote is a wasted one that they may be unwilling to cast such a vote, but it doesn't change the underlying truth. And I can't help but find it ironic that a country that was once upon a time looked upon by many as an almost exemplary model of democracy has so little of its citizenry actually believing that democracy might actually work.
Assuming you are referring to the issue with the FCC ignoring letters, 45,000 emails is not reflective of the will of the public in a country with over 300 million people, especially when it does not amount to doing anything more than basically signing your name on someone else's letter and sending it. It is reflective of the beliefs of a special interest group which has made some relatively small number of people aware enough of the issue to sympathise with their position.
I don't agree with the FCC's decision for a second here, but if you really want to say that the public's will is being ignored, then at the very least you can also say that the public did not do anywhere nearly enough to be really heard as such a voice for the people.
We can't simply say "no, fuck you". One of them WILL be president
Not necessarily true... at least theoretically, an independent could have been elected if they were to actually get more votes than either of the two main parties.
The fact that many people in the USA feel that any vote that isn't for one of the big two is a wasted one is irrelevant. If enough people voted for an independent, than an independent would, in fact, be president. Period.
You presume that the sender and receiver are unwilling to pay the overhead for using such encryption. If they want to keep a secret badly enough, it's a safe bet that they will, especially if that is the only option remaining to them that still guarantees unbreakability.
My point was that it's actually up to the Czech Republic to allow or disallow it. Disallowing may piss certain people off, or allowing it to the one country when another wanted extradition as well may piss the latter country off. They need to carefully weigh the pros and cons of each of their possible decisions to determine the best course of action. Regardless, the decision is entirely their's, not Russia's and not the USA's.
Every game company for which I've worked has had their own game engine behind several of their projects. They'll use a standard one for a project if circumstances warrant it, but just as often as not, they would use their own.
Given that the performance of Rust is often inferior in peformance to doing the same job in C++, I'm not sure how you arrive at the notion that it has zero cost.
I did a bit more reading up on the matter, and found out some interesting stuff.
The language used in the terms you quoted is not legally enforceable except when either the person is profiting from making a Robby costume, or if they are otherwise engaging in any reproductions beyond making a single costume for their own personal use. A person who was wearing such a costume that they made for themselves would *NOT* be actioned against, simply because it is not worth anyone's time to try and go after every single fan who happens to make a costume. The above example I gave of a person going to a convention dressed as Robby would likely be fine, unless they were profiting from the use of the costume in some way (eg, compensated for being in photos with people, or if they are otherwise being paid to appear at the convention in such an outfit).
The issue of posting plans on how to build a character that looked like the robot, as long as no profit is being made from it, looks like it would be in the clear, and as long as no attempt was made to affiliate the appearance of the costume with the name of the trademarked character. It seems they could certainly take action against someone who was profiting from the distribution of such plans, even if no explicit reference to Robby existed.
IANAL... YMMV. But this is what I was able to take from what I've found online about using that character's likeness in a homemade costume.
Good to know... so I guess we won't see any costume plans posted.
I think it's unlikely that it would stop someone who didn't know about those guidelines from actually doing it on their own though... especially they had only made it for a SF convention they were planning to attend, unless Time-Werner somehow ensures that alerts are sent to every SF convention all over the world to let their volunteer workers to not allow people in such a costume into the con. Bearing in mind the unlikelihood that they would even know about an unauthorized costume, by the time they even got a C&D to such convention in a some more remote city, for example, a weekend convention would probably be over, and they'd have no way to know who it was that dressed that way unless the convention also kept track of which guests were in which costumes (which I suppose is possible, but I've never seen them do that at any con I've ever gone to).
Or, perhaps, I was simply preferring the usage of a more precise term. Competing is a type of fighting, of course, but to suggest that the USA are fighting over an issue when in fact they are actually more correctly competing for it is misleading, at best.
No, it's not. But I've seen some really amazing cosplay outfits that were built for only a couple of hundred dollars or so. I'd imagine that something like robby could be built for a similar price.
Then they aren't really fighting... they are competing. There is a difference. Fighting suggests they are in conflict with eachother directly. Competing suggests that they are trying to each come out ahead of the other in a matter that is actually external to both.
Both Robby and Lost in Space would not be able to kill Robocop, because they would perceive that he was alive, recognizing him as human. Data is more agile than any of them, and he could probably dodge most attacks in hand-to-hand combat, so I think the smart money would be on him.
Well yes... many weeks of labor would go without saying. There are cheaper DIY ways to go than vacuum forming plastic, however... even if they are more labor intensive. I can imagine that for a Robby costume, the most expensive parts would be the electronics and working gadgets that make the costume interesting, and of course the clear dome that goes on top, unless one is able to source it from a place that makes such shapes out of acrylic already in bulk. The materials for the bulk of the costume might only cost about $40 or so.
... Not the US, not Russia. It's up to the Czech republic to decide which country to let him be extradited to.
Or, they can decide to not allow him to be extradited at all. Regardless, it's up to them to weigh whatever they estimate the costs to themselves might be for making a decision that is unpopular with somebody else.
Final answer, it's up the country he's currently in to decide when to allow, where to allow, and even *IF* to allow extradition. Full stop.
As they would only be throttling the traffic that they did not explicitly recognize. I'm still not sure that's a problem. For TCP, it's not going to be delivering new packets to the end-user faster than they acknowledge the receipt of each one, so the user's speed is controlled that way, with redundant acknowledgements ignored. For UDP, it can just drop packets entirely if the received content as amortized over the last some fixed number of packets or period of time exceeds some bandwidth threshold. Ditto even for ICMP.
Because every ISP would be identical in this regard,the end-user doesn't really have a choice.
The big players that want to defend net neutrality taking over just the small ISP's wouldn't really help because those small ISP's aren't necessarily available everywhere... and most people only have a choice (if they have any choice at all) of using one of the bigger broadband ISP's.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but most people who are suicdal do not genuinely want to die as much as they would rather want their living circumstances just to be different from whatever they are
Yeah. It wouldnâ(TM)t stop drivers from being dumb, because it wouldnâ(TM)t be able to tell the difference between a passenger and a driver, but it could still mitigate pedestrian accidents caused by them not being aware of their surroundings
Yeah, the camera drains the battery faster, but it's just a friggen *game* for crying out loud.
I didn't mean to suggest that it is irrelevant to how people might feel they ought to vote, I suggested only that it is irrelevant to the fact that if enough people voted for an independent candidate, then the USA would, in fact, get an independent president.
It may certainly be true that much of the USA population is so far led by the notion that any independent vote is a wasted one that they may be unwilling to cast such a vote, but it doesn't change the underlying truth. And I can't help but find it ironic that a country that was once upon a time looked upon by many as an almost exemplary model of democracy has so little of its citizenry actually believing that democracy might actually work.
Assuming you are referring to the issue with the FCC ignoring letters, 45,000 emails is not reflective of the will of the public in a country with over 300 million people, especially when it does not amount to doing anything more than basically signing your name on someone else's letter and sending it. It is reflective of the beliefs of a special interest group which has made some relatively small number of people aware enough of the issue to sympathise with their position.
I don't agree with the FCC's decision for a second here, but if you really want to say that the public's will is being ignored, then at the very least you can also say that the public did not do anywhere nearly enough to be really heard as such a voice for the people.
Not necessarily true... at least theoretically, an independent could have been elected if they were to actually get more votes than either of the two main parties.
The fact that many people in the USA feel that any vote that isn't for one of the big two is a wasted one is irrelevant. If enough people voted for an independent, than an independent would, in fact, be president. Period.
You presume that the sender and receiver are unwilling to pay the overhead for using such encryption. If they want to keep a secret badly enough, it's a safe bet that they will, especially if that is the only option remaining to them that still guarantees unbreakability.
My point was that it's actually up to the Czech Republic to allow or disallow it. Disallowing may piss certain people off, or allowing it to the one country when another wanted extradition as well may piss the latter country off. They need to carefully weigh the pros and cons of each of their possible decisions to determine the best course of action. Regardless, the decision is entirely their's, not Russia's and not the USA's.
Every game company for which I've worked has had their own game engine behind several of their projects. They'll use a standard one for a project if circumstances warrant it, but just as often as not, they would use their own.
Given that the performance of Rust is often inferior in peformance to doing the same job in C++, I'm not sure how you arrive at the notion that it has zero cost.
If they weren't willing to pay attention to letters, what makes anyone think they'd pay attention to a petition?
I did a bit more reading up on the matter, and found out some interesting stuff.
The language used in the terms you quoted is not legally enforceable except when either the person is profiting from making a Robby costume, or if they are otherwise engaging in any reproductions beyond making a single costume for their own personal use. A person who was wearing such a costume that they made for themselves would *NOT* be actioned against, simply because it is not worth anyone's time to try and go after every single fan who happens to make a costume. The above example I gave of a person going to a convention dressed as Robby would likely be fine, unless they were profiting from the use of the costume in some way (eg, compensated for being in photos with people, or if they are otherwise being paid to appear at the convention in such an outfit).
The issue of posting plans on how to build a character that looked like the robot, as long as no profit is being made from it, looks like it would be in the clear, and as long as no attempt was made to affiliate the appearance of the costume with the name of the trademarked character. It seems they could certainly take action against someone who was profiting from the distribution of such plans, even if no explicit reference to Robby existed.
IANAL... YMMV. But this is what I was able to take from what I've found online about using that character's likeness in a homemade costume.
Good to know... so I guess we won't see any costume plans posted.
I think it's unlikely that it would stop someone who didn't know about those guidelines from actually doing it on their own though... especially they had only made it for a SF convention they were planning to attend, unless Time-Werner somehow ensures that alerts are sent to every SF convention all over the world to let their volunteer workers to not allow people in such a costume into the con. Bearing in mind the unlikelihood that they would even know about an unauthorized costume, by the time they even got a C&D to such convention in a some more remote city, for example, a weekend convention would probably be over, and they'd have no way to know who it was that dressed that way unless the convention also kept track of which guests were in which costumes (which I suppose is possible, but I've never seen them do that at any con I've ever gone to).
Or, perhaps, I was simply preferring the usage of a more precise term. Competing is a type of fighting, of course, but to suggest that the USA are fighting over an issue when in fact they are actually more correctly competing for it is misleading, at best.
No, it's not. But I've seen some really amazing cosplay outfits that were built for only a couple of hundred dollars or so. I'd imagine that something like robby could be built for a similar price.
Then they aren't really fighting... they are competing. There is a difference. Fighting suggests they are in conflict with eachother directly. Competing suggests that they are trying to each come out ahead of the other in a matter that is actually external to both.
Both Robby and Lost in Space would not be able to kill Robocop, because they would perceive that he was alive, recognizing him as human. Data is more agile than any of them, and he could probably dodge most attacks in hand-to-hand combat, so I think the smart money would be on him.
That's about right, yup. My point being that the USA and Russia fighting over it is pointless, because it's not up to either of them.
Well yes... many weeks of labor would go without saying. There are cheaper DIY ways to go than vacuum forming plastic, however... even if they are more labor intensive. I can imagine that for a Robby costume, the most expensive parts would be the electronics and working gadgets that make the costume interesting, and of course the clear dome that goes on top, unless one is able to source it from a place that makes such shapes out of acrylic already in bulk. The materials for the bulk of the costume might only cost about $40 or so.
Or, they can decide to not allow him to be extradited at all. Regardless, it's up to them to weigh whatever they estimate the costs to themselves might be for making a decision that is unpopular with somebody else.
Final answer, it's up the country he's currently in to decide when to allow, where to allow, and even *IF* to allow extradition. Full stop.
To whom, exactly? Not everyone has a choice in which broadband ISPs are available.
Or they could just fall back to dialup and get the same effective speed anyways.
As they would only be throttling the traffic that they did not explicitly recognize. I'm still not sure that's a problem. For TCP, it's not going to be delivering new packets to the end-user faster than they acknowledge the receipt of each one, so the user's speed is controlled that way, with redundant acknowledgements ignored. For UDP, it can just drop packets entirely if the received content as amortized over the last some fixed number of packets or period of time exceeds some bandwidth threshold. Ditto even for ICMP.
Because every ISP would be identical in this regard,the end-user doesn't really have a choice.
Wanna bet somebody figures out how to make a DIY costume like that for under $500?
The big players that want to defend net neutrality taking over just the small ISP's wouldn't really help because those small ISP's aren't necessarily available everywhere... and most people only have a choice (if they have any choice at all) of using one of the bigger broadband ISP's.
What makes you think that an ISP would care if they throttled all of it?