The statement that I was replying to claimed that the reason it was US property was that it was Procured with Government funds, not that it wasn't being used by anyone else. The point was that procurement by government funds by itself is not enough justification to claim ownership by that government (and that was presented by the previous owner as the only justification needed).
Why is it government property? I thought there was an agreement that the moon was not owned by any country or government. Surely taking the rock from the moon doesn't actually mean that you then own it (as you've then stolen it from the rest of the world). If it belongs to anyone one earth, then maybe the UN, but not an individual government.
But really that's all they've got. If, as the article claims, they've got a +/- 3%, then that gives them between 7%-13%. Their best guess would be 10%, but it's still a guess, so it's approximately 10%. If you take your "second to last figure is accurate" theory, then 10.1% indicates that they know that it's 10% +/-.5%, which it isn't.
Inappropriate precision really bugs me. The figure "10.1%" suggests that their reseach is accuruate to 0.1%. There is no way that that is true. Why don't they stick with "approximately 10%"? It just suggests to me that people are trusting the conclusions far more than they have a right to given the raw data that they started with.
But surely that's intention, not sophistication. Hitting someone over the head with a big rock is a pretty unsophisticated murder, but is not treated any differently from using an almost untraceable poison if there was the same intention.
Require the U.S. Sentencing Commission to revise sentencing guidelines for computer crimes. The commission would consider whether the offense involved a government computer, the "level of sophistication" shown and whether the person acted maliciously.
I'm not sure I see how the level of sophistication should affect the sentencing. Does this happen in other crimes? ("He shot her a bit amateurishly, so we'll only give him 5 years"). And why does it make a difference whether its a government computer or not?
This is probably quite common. I know my phone number is in the source code for at least one commercial app. My friend didn't have pen handy so he just stuck it in the code he happened to be writing, with every intention of removing it the following morning. He forgot, checked it into source control, and as far as I know it's still there 4 years later.
Men producing wealth is not repugnant. If they produce enough to live in "luxury," congradulate them. Those that are incapable of producing starve.
If this was a totally level playing field then you might at least have some kind of point. But it's not. Large amounts of people in the world are born into an environment where they don't have an opportunity to try to get wealthy. They are too busy trying to find their next meal. If you'd been born poor in somewhere like Rwanda (or Afghanistan, or Ethiopia, or one of many similar countries around the world), do you think you could have stood a chance of getting to the comfortable life that you have now?
Anyway, do you really believe that a society where the few who are (for whatever reasons) capable, and inclinded, to grab as much wealth as they possibly can with no regard for others is really the society that you want to live in?
It is 10 gigabit, not 10.6 gigabit. 10.6Gb/s was the speed they got over a PAIR of 10 gigabit ethernet connections.
No. It's a 10.6 gigabit connection over 2 pairs of 10 gigabit Ethernet interfaces. It doesn't matter how it's made up, the connection speed is the overall speed of the connection.
According to this site, the original French decimal calendar included days called Eggplant, Manure, Shovel, Gypsum, Billy Goat, Spinach, and Tunny Fish.
I believe a free market should provide for maximum or at least high economic efficiency
Why? Who does that benefit? Shouldn't the system provide for the highest quality of life for the largest amount of people? If maximum efficiency means large amounts people get laid off, or have to work for low wages, or in unsafe environments (which it frequently does), then why is this possibly a good thing?
You say nobody buys it. Some people will, but probably not enough. These people will have the choice to have non-Palladium systems taken away from them. And non-Palladium manufacturers will no longer be able to sell their products.
Isn't one of the claims of the free market that it increases competition and choice for the consumer?
When one manufacturer can make a decision which uses its large market share to remove the ability for other companies to compete on a level playing field, that can't be a good thing.
How would the law deal with an article that was published in an obscure newspaper that no-one read, but then a year later someone took thousands of copies of the paper and started leaving them lying around in public places for people to read?
Slashdot Mirror
Great if the variables are numeric. Works less well with strings.
If it's a valuable rock (which I'm assuming the moon rock is), then quite possibly. You've probably breached someone's mineral rights.
The statement that I was replying to claimed that the reason it was US property was that it was Procured with Government funds, not that it wasn't being used by anyone else. The point was that procurement by government funds by itself is not enough justification to claim ownership by that government (and that was presented by the previous owner as the only justification needed).
Kuwait was procured with Iraqi government funds. Does this meant that they should have been legally entitled to it?
I suspect burglars could use that arguement. "I had to haul the TV out of his house, so it must be mine".
Remember, you own what you put your sweat in.
Tell that to your employer. If your contract is anything like most peoples, they own what you put your sweat in.
Why is it government property? I thought there was an agreement that the moon was not owned by any country or government. Surely taking the rock from the moon doesn't actually mean that you then own it (as you've then stolen it from the rest of the world). If it belongs to anyone one earth, then maybe the UN, but not an individual government.
Apart from the accuracy that they quote (+/-3%) means that they don't know where it falls in the 7-13% range.
But really that's all they've got. If, as the article claims, they've got a +/- 3%, then that gives them between 7%-13%. Their best guess would be 10%, but it's still a guess, so it's approximately 10%. If you take your "second to last figure is accurate" theory, then 10.1% indicates that they know that it's 10% +/- .5%, which it isn't.
Inappropriate precision really bugs me. The figure "10.1%" suggests that their reseach is accuruate to 0.1%. There is no way that that is true. Why don't they stick with "approximately 10%"? It just suggests to me that people are trusting the conclusions far more than they have a right to given the raw data that they started with.
This isn't new. Sky in the UK has been offering this feature for at least 6 months with something called Sky+.
Again, nothing to do with sophistication. That's repeat offending.
But surely that's intention, not sophistication. Hitting someone over the head with a big rock is a pretty unsophisticated murder, but is not treated any differently from using an almost untraceable poison if there was the same intention.
I'm not sure I see how the level of sophistication should affect the sentencing. Does this happen in other crimes? ("He shot her a bit amateurishly, so we'll only give him 5 years"). And why does it make a difference whether its a government computer or not?
They'll just bomb your country.
This is probably quite common. I know my phone number is in the source code for at least one commercial app. My friend didn't have pen handy so he just stuck it in the code he happened to be writing, with every intention of removing it the following morning. He forgot, checked it into source control, and as far as I know it's still there 4 years later.
If this was a totally level playing field then you might at least have some kind of point. But it's not. Large amounts of people in the world are born into an environment where they don't have an opportunity to try to get wealthy. They are too busy trying to find their next meal. If you'd been born poor in somewhere like Rwanda (or Afghanistan, or Ethiopia, or one of many similar countries around the world), do you think you could have stood a chance of getting to the comfortable life that you have now?
Anyway, do you really believe that a society where the few who are (for whatever reasons) capable, and inclinded, to grab as much wealth as they possibly can with no regard for others is really the society that you want to live in?
No. It's a 10.6 gigabit connection over 2 pairs of 10 gigabit Ethernet interfaces. It doesn't matter how it's made up, the connection speed is the overall speed of the connection.
What about the Nokia Communicator. It's been around for at least 3 years (possibly more) in some form or other.
Just because one instance of deep linking has been ruled illegal, doesn't mean all instances are illegal.
Indeed it doesn't. But what it may well do is encourage other companies to bring similar cases.
According to this site, the original French decimal calendar included days called Eggplant, Manure, Shovel, Gypsum, Billy Goat, Spinach, and Tunny Fish.
My VCR gets its time from the TV signal. Don't most videos have this now?
I believe a free market should provide for maximum or at least high economic efficiency
Why? Who does that benefit? Shouldn't the system provide for the highest quality of life for the largest amount of people? If maximum efficiency means large amounts people get laid off, or have to work for low wages, or in unsafe environments (which it frequently does), then why is this possibly a good thing?
You say nobody buys it. Some people will, but probably not enough. These people will have the choice to have non-Palladium systems taken away from them. And non-Palladium manufacturers will no longer be able to sell their products.
Isn't one of the claims of the free market that it increases competition and choice for the consumer?
When one manufacturer can make a decision which uses its large market share to remove the ability for other companies to compete on a level playing field, that can't be a good thing.
How would the law deal with an article that was published in an obscure newspaper that no-one read, but then a year later someone took thousands of copies of the paper and started leaving them lying around in public places for people to read?
If you don't like it don't buy it. Nobody is forcing you to buy these computers.
Ah yes, the wonder of the "free market".
Let's see how this could work.
1) Microsoft decide that they will not support hardware made by companies that also make non-Palladium versions.
2) Hardware manufacturers see their market disappearing if it won't run with Windows.
3) All hardware is made Palladium-compatible.
4) Non-palladium OSes no longer work on the hardware.
Not too difficult to imagine, is it?