AFAICS North Korea is best interpreted as a toddler who is indulging in tantrums to get attention. If that's the case, we have a problem. The normal toddler can be safely ignored while it goes on and on. However such a brat is not capable of doing any real damage. Whilst we may wish to assume that the NK leadership isn't suicidal, that's a hard call given just how nutty they seem to be. However it may be the best solution - just ignore them at a real level, although letting their latest threats get into the media so they don't feel totally ignored and so raise the stakes. But it could be worse - they could believe they will be rewarded in an afterlife for being destructive...
There is no duty to sell to any person regardless of the terms you as vendor are imposing. This is why such clauses would be 'enforceable', not because a court wouldn't enforce them.
As a big purchaser, government usually looks for discounts - which would be unavailable. All of us who are interested in enforcing the thing will be looking to see if our politicians, police officers, judges, and civil servants have a mobile. The use of a mobile by an investigator in a crime investigation could render a conviction unsustainable, since the police would have been acting illegally.
It's not a case of it being ruled 'invalid'. It's that the companies refuse to sell unless the governments sign up to the terms. Otherwise - no phones. The idea of the government forcing a company to sell it a product on the government's terms is... interesting.
If you become aware of a means of breaching the security of this device that you own, you are required to reveal it to Apple. Get all other mobile firm companies to add the term to the contract. Then they either have to stop operating mobiles, or hand it over.
According to Israel, the only way to stop being a Jew is to become a Christian - though the Nazis didn't agree.
Also according to Israel, conversion by an Orthodox Rabbi makes you a proper Jew. One of the hot topics is whether Reform Rabbi's conversion are acceptable - at the moment they are not.
Google books and google scholar are amazing resources for me as a graduate student. Google maps makes a significant contribution to my lifestyle. Youtube has it moments...
The reality is that a lot of systems access databases formatted when that wasn't the case, so are incapable of dealing with larger field sizes because they were set up decades ago. So if the underlying COBOL system won't allow more than 30 characters, it would be foolish to allow a front end that did...
Certainly in the UK, a awful lot of good people do contracting rather than sticking with one company. Your superb dissection of what's wrong helps me understand why! I hope your escape tunnel building is going well; by the sounds of it you need it.
The assumption that people actually carry enough cash to pay for a tank load of petrol, especially in Europe where it's a lot more expensive because of higher taxation, is highly dubious. So when the bank refuses the cards of a lot of customers one day it's going to get ugly rather fast.
add in those who are on the bread line who can't afford to have that sort of amount of cash hanging around, and there's a big issue. As ever, those of us who are comfortable, have several credit cards and a reasonable credit card limit don't have a problem. But there's a lot of people who don't.
Derry was renamed Londonderry for a reason - that a lot of Londoners ended up there. Incidentally British = Welsh, English and Scottish, so the statement 'the British' sent the Scots is... incoherent.
"I don't think equating a (consensual) United Ireland with an invasion of Canada is a reasonable one."
Oh please. The people of Ulster voted many times to indicate that they didn't want to be forced into Eire. The fact that a minority did want it doesn't make a difference; they were a minority. Which is why unless you were proposing an Ireland wide referendum, it wouldn't even appear to be consensual
Which is where the parallel with the US and Canada is entirely applicable; if a referendum held across the US and Canada produced a result in favour of unification, even if Canada voted against, would you regard that as 'consensual'? And I remind you that the US government DID try to invade Canada...
Personally I'd be happy to dump Ulster into Eire - but the British have made a promise not to force that into happening. Americans, having no sense of history and so being late into both WWI and WWII are... not well placed to understand this concept.
"We've had religion for tens of thousands of years, and, there's no documented proof of any god. It's a myth."
The best documented evidence is the Resurrection, which the church celebrates on Sunday. People have tried to disprove it - and tend to end up convinced it happened. A good example is 'Who Moved the Stone' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
" The IRA's political aim, a united Ireland against a backdrop of centuries of English Protestant oppression, is laudable, but don't confuse that laudability with the people who ran that group.
The logic of a united Ireland is as reasonable as the USA conquering Canada. Whilst this was the intention of US foreign policy at one time, the US has grown out of it. The concept of accepting the settled that have emerged as a result of colonialism is a fraught one, but it has worked better in Africa, and until recently the Middle East, than the alternative of fighting it out.
The issue of 'oppression' is of course more complex, though blaming the 'English' shows a lack of knowledge, given that Ulster Protestants are mainly of Scottish origin, as indicated by the prevalence of Presbyterianism as the main churches. In retrospect it's obvious that the Catholics were being oppressed; but that was hard for everyone to admit at the time. We've got to the point now where a really messy constitution is up and running that has begun to build trust, but the situation is still on a knife edge.
We have a system of separate 'taxis' and 'mini-cabs'. Taxis tout for business on the street, clutter up railway stations and airports waiting for customers and are relatively expensive. Alternatively you can phone a mini-cab to come and collect you. Cheaper per mile - just can't tout for business - you have to book it via the office.
Along comes Uber and confuses the distinction. You book the ride via the app - fulfilling the requirement to be a 'mini-cab' - but the Uber cars can be hovering waiting for a client in a more aggressive way than traditional mini-cab. And being able to do it all trivially easily makes it as painless as getting a proper taxi. So we end up with a well regulated new competitor to both taxis and mini-cabs - and a lot of upset taxi drivers.
I think Benn's proposal to move to 50 year leasehold wouldn't have ended de facto private ownership. The present problem in the UK is the rapidly falling rate of owner occupation because 'buy-to-let' has proved to be such an attractive option for the rich and moderately rich. We peaked at something over 80% for one cohort, but it's been falling rapidly ever since.
Your history is... interesting. The 1066 invasion was merely the last of a series of invasions by Vikings from various parts of Scandinavia, the Normans of course being Vikings who'd conquered Normandy a few generations earlier. Given that since then we've had kings who were originally rulers of Scotland, Holland and Hanover come and rule us, it's... messy.
The point about 'commons' is that they weren't; they were actually highly regulated, with different commoners having specified right to benefit from the grazing or whatever. Indeed when they are not regulated, things do easily go very horribly wrong. But this wasn't the case the English commons.
Which confirmed my suspicions on the issue, but have never seen tested. If it's cheaper on the calculation offered, the collective value of speeding up the buses makes it a shoo in. Which makes me wonder if the car companies are encouraging 'disabled rights' in order to discourage bus usage; after all it's generally recognised that the car firms bought up and closed down the LA tram system in the 50s for this purpose.
A law professor who believes that the federal government is seriously constrained by the law. Given the ability of local police to get away with killing people at will, it's clear that this is not a good assumption...
Sadly the only way to alter behaviour is to create an environment where misbehaviour results in sanctions. This means that patient data escaping from a clinic should result in the suspension of your licence to practice medicine if you are a small clinic, and stupid fines if you are large. And a reward for whistle blowers who report it - with a discount on the fines if the mistake is reported promptly. Allow companies to insure against the fines - but encourage the insurers to test their clients...
Well - that's the optimistic interpretation of the present fiasco that is the US primary season. Or at least a lot of people. In that context, it's wiser to accept they are going to do stupid things and try and reduce their impact. Driving while tired? It's going to happen. So it's better to have a system that keeps you on the road than one that lets you drift off and kill yourself - or others. We need to ensure that fail-safe is the philosophy underlying all these designs.
Slashdot Mirror
AFAICS North Korea is best interpreted as a toddler who is indulging in tantrums to get attention. If that's the case, we have a problem. The normal toddler can be safely ignored while it goes on and on. However such a brat is not capable of doing any real damage. Whilst we may wish to assume that the NK leadership isn't suicidal, that's a hard call given just how nutty they seem to be. However it may be the best solution - just ignore them at a real level, although letting their latest threats get into the media so they don't feel totally ignored and so raise the stakes. But it could be worse - they could believe they will be rewarded in an afterlife for being destructive...
There is no duty to sell to any person regardless of the terms you as vendor are imposing. This is why such clauses would be 'enforceable', not because a court wouldn't enforce them.
As a big purchaser, government usually looks for discounts - which would be unavailable. All of us who are interested in enforcing the thing will be looking to see if our politicians, police officers, judges, and civil servants have a mobile. The use of a mobile by an investigator in a crime investigation could render a conviction unsustainable, since the police would have been acting illegally.
All a bit unrealistic maybe - or maybe not.
It's not a case of it being ruled 'invalid'. It's that the companies refuse to sell unless the governments sign up to the terms. Otherwise - no phones. The idea of the government forcing a company to sell it a product on the government's terms is... interesting.
If you become aware of a means of breaching the security of this device that you own, you are required to reveal it to Apple. Get all other mobile firm companies to add the term to the contract. Then they either have to stop operating mobiles, or hand it over.
Easily done, as demonstrated here by Sir Humphrey https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
According to Israel, the only way to stop being a Jew is to become a Christian - though the Nazis didn't agree.
Also according to Israel, conversion by an Orthodox Rabbi makes you a proper Jew. One of the hot topics is whether Reform Rabbi's conversion are acceptable - at the moment they are not.
Google books and google scholar are amazing resources for me as a graduate student. Google maps makes a significant contribution to my lifestyle. Youtube has it moments...
The reality is that a lot of systems access databases formatted when that wasn't the case, so are incapable of dealing with larger field sizes because they were set up decades ago. So if the underlying COBOL system won't allow more than 30 characters, it would be foolish to allow a front end that did...
Certainly in the UK, a awful lot of good people do contracting rather than sticking with one company. Your superb dissection of what's wrong helps me understand why! I hope your escape tunnel building is going well; by the sounds of it you need it.
The assumption that people actually carry enough cash to pay for a tank load of petrol, especially in Europe where it's a lot more expensive because of higher taxation, is highly dubious. So when the bank refuses the cards of a lot of customers one day it's going to get ugly rather fast.
This story makes the point
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/busi...
add in those who are on the bread line who can't afford to have that sort of amount of cash hanging around, and there's a big issue. As ever, those of us who are comfortable, have several credit cards and a reasonable credit card limit don't have a problem. But there's a lot of people who don't.
Really? You Sure? I've a friend who has worked two UK banks and would definitely agree.
Great idea; ain't going to happen. The ability of the big boys to ever extend their copyrights is a clear sign of who's got the power in this area.
Derry was renamed Londonderry for a reason - that a lot of Londoners ended up there. Incidentally British = Welsh, English and Scottish, so the statement 'the British' sent the Scots is... incoherent.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-e...
Fits the bill
"I don't think equating a (consensual) United Ireland with an invasion of Canada is a reasonable one."
Oh please. The people of Ulster voted many times to indicate that they didn't want to be forced into Eire. The fact that a minority did want it doesn't make a difference; they were a minority. Which is why unless you were proposing an Ireland wide referendum, it wouldn't even appear to be consensual
Which is where the parallel with the US and Canada is entirely applicable; if a referendum held across the US and Canada produced a result in favour of unification, even if Canada voted against, would you regard that as 'consensual'? And I remind you that the US government DID try to invade Canada...
Personally I'd be happy to dump Ulster into Eire - but the British have made a promise not to force that into happening. Americans, having no sense of history and so being late into both WWI and WWII are... not well placed to understand this concept.
"We've had religion for tens of thousands of years, and, there's no documented proof of any god. It's a myth." The best documented evidence is the Resurrection, which the church celebrates on Sunday. People have tried to disprove it - and tend to end up convinced it happened. A good example is 'Who Moved the Stone' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
" The IRA's political aim, a united Ireland against a backdrop of centuries of English Protestant oppression, is laudable, but don't confuse that laudability with the people who ran that group.
The logic of a united Ireland is as reasonable as the USA conquering Canada. Whilst this was the intention of US foreign policy at one time, the US has grown out of it. The concept of accepting the settled that have emerged as a result of colonialism is a fraught one, but it has worked better in Africa, and until recently the Middle East, than the alternative of fighting it out.
The issue of 'oppression' is of course more complex, though blaming the 'English' shows a lack of knowledge, given that Ulster Protestants are mainly of Scottish origin, as indicated by the prevalence of Presbyterianism as the main churches. In retrospect it's obvious that the Catholics were being oppressed; but that was hard for everyone to admit at the time. We've got to the point now where a really messy constitution is up and running that has begun to build trust, but the situation is still on a knife edge.
We have a system of separate 'taxis' and 'mini-cabs'. Taxis tout for business on the street, clutter up railway stations and airports waiting for customers and are relatively expensive. Alternatively you can phone a mini-cab to come and collect you. Cheaper per mile - just can't tout for business - you have to book it via the office.
Along comes Uber and confuses the distinction. You book the ride via the app - fulfilling the requirement to be a 'mini-cab' - but the Uber cars can be hovering waiting for a client in a more aggressive way than traditional mini-cab. And being able to do it all trivially easily makes it as painless as getting a proper taxi. So we end up with a well regulated new competitor to both taxis and mini-cabs - and a lot of upset taxi drivers.
I think Benn's proposal to move to 50 year leasehold wouldn't have ended de facto private ownership. The present problem in the UK is the rapidly falling rate of owner occupation because 'buy-to-let' has proved to be such an attractive option for the rich and moderately rich. We peaked at something over 80% for one cohort, but it's been falling rapidly ever since.
Your history is... interesting. The 1066 invasion was merely the last of a series of invasions by Vikings from various parts of Scandinavia, the Normans of course being Vikings who'd conquered Normandy a few generations earlier. Given that since then we've had kings who were originally rulers of Scotland, Holland and Hanover come and rule us, it's... messy.
The point about 'commons' is that they weren't; they were actually highly regulated, with different commoners having specified right to benefit from the grazing or whatever. Indeed when they are not regulated, things do easily go very horribly wrong. But this wasn't the case the English commons.
Which confirmed my suspicions on the issue, but have never seen tested. If it's cheaper on the calculation offered, the collective value of speeding up the buses makes it a shoo in. Which makes me wonder if the car companies are encouraging 'disabled rights' in order to discourage bus usage; after all it's generally recognised that the car firms bought up and closed down the LA tram system in the 50s for this purpose.
A law professor who believes that the federal government is seriously constrained by the law. Given the ability of local police to get away with killing people at will, it's clear that this is not a good assumption...
Sadly the only way to alter behaviour is to create an environment where misbehaviour results in sanctions. This means that patient data escaping from a clinic should result in the suspension of your licence to practice medicine if you are a small clinic, and stupid fines if you are large. And a reward for whistle blowers who report it - with a discount on the fines if the mistake is reported promptly. Allow companies to insure against the fines - but encourage the insurers to test their clients...
Well - that's the optimistic interpretation of the present fiasco that is the US primary season. Or at least a lot of people. In that context, it's wiser to accept they are going to do stupid things and try and reduce their impact. Driving while tired? It's going to happen. So it's better to have a system that keeps you on the road than one that lets you drift off and kill yourself - or others. We need to ensure that fail-safe is the philosophy underlying all these designs.
Whilst I am a strong fan of self driving cars, this is nuts. Next you'll tell me that the software on ICBMs can be changed over the air...