Or you could just vaccinate your chickens against salmonella (as the U.K. does for example) and stop worrying about it. If you get salmonella from an egg in the U.K. you have eaten something with cheap nasty foreign eggs.
That because there where two products, Cool Edit and Cool Edit Pro. When Adobe purchased the software they dropped Cool Edit and turned Cool Edit Pro in to Audition. Interesting that you can run Audition in Wine, I have been running it in a VirtualBox Windows XP VM for some years now, but Wine would have lower overheads...
You could try freepascal, excellant Turbo Pascal 7 compatibility and even a large amount of Delphi compatibility. It's free and versions exist for Windows, OSX and Linux.
Yeah that's because you are used to watching cheap ass American TV. On the other hand living in the U.K. I expect and get that sort of production quality in all/most drama series produced primarily for the U.K. market.
No OJ was found not guilty because the prosecution spent ages building up the case that the murder wore a particular pair of gloves, when those gloves failed to fit in front of the jury their was reasonable doubt and the prosecution was lost as there was now reasonable doubt and the state of California required the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
No but then as far as I am aware no Jews have murdered a significant proportion of the editorial team of a publication for printing pictures of Moses or Abraham,... Neither am I aware of any Jews demanding that such pictures never be published.
The problem is Sunni Muslims take offence at *ANY* depiction of the prophet, whether it mocks Islam or not. They would like to make it illegal for me to ever depict Muhammed visually. This is whole and totally unacceptable to myself and hundreds of millions of others.
The Christian religion is offended by the claim of Islam that Jesus is not the son of God. The inescapable conclusion of which is No Charlie Hebdo, no Koran.
One could further note that if Muslims claimed that Christianity was offensive to them because it claimed that Jesus was the son of God, it was around first, so it is still a fail on behalf of Islam.
If I am a Christian, Islam is an open insult against my religion (it denies that Jesus is the son of God). So apparently I have the right for protection from such open insults, which would from your reckoning amount to the banning of Islam and the Koran.
You seem to fail to understand the difference between a street address for a building and it's physical location (probably in OSGB36 coordinates) and that address being associated with one or more individuals.
In fact the Royal Mail already maintain such a database known as the Postcode Address File
The elephant in the room is that Islam is fundamentally and irreconcilably offensive to Christians because they say Jesus was not the son of God. There is nothing more blasphemous than denying this fundamental tenant of Christianity.
If we follow this logic Christian's would be perfectly justified in beating up any Muslim that they happened to come across. The problem with the majority of Muslim's is that they don't seem to be able to reconcile the very tolerance that allows them to practice an offensive religion in largely Christian (or at least ones that used to be) countries is a two way street. My personal view is if they can't accept and live with it then they should emigrate to a country with laws more to their liking.
Yeah I live in Scotland and voted No. Was really worried at the time, however the vote was nowhere near as close as advertised mostly due to what I would describe as voter intimidation by Yes campaigners.
However I would like another referendum next month so we can hammer the SNP's economic plans for the lies they always where and get another No vote to shut the them up permanently.
I would note the SNP have been very quite on the issue of oil and gas prices and the impact this would have had on their fiscal plans for an independent Scotland.
Dam I meant to point out that if you had bothered to read your wikipedia link you would note that the U.S. Supreme court has repeatedly ruled that ex post facto law is only prohibited for criminal law and not civil law. As copyright is civil law ex post facto effects of legislation is permitted.
Read my idea again, it is very specifically not ex post facto. Copyright extension is fine, but if you wish to make use of it then you have to consider your past actions. If you don't make use of it then you don't have to consider your past actions. As such it is not ex post facto as it does not change any pre-existing legal relationships.
I would note by your definition of ex post facto then any copyright extension as currently enacted is illegal in the U.S.A. because it changes the legal status of relationships that existed before the law was enacted.
For example I might have a copy of a piece of work that I had paid for on the understanding that by now it would be out of copyright, but the extension has changed that legal relationship. Copyright extension can by your definition only be ex post facto for works created *AFTER* the copyright extension is enacted.
Oh and finally not every legal jurisdiction on this planet bans ex post facto laws. So while it might be forbidden by the United States constitution (which I would note could always be amended), those laws don't extend to the entire planet.
Let's also be fair the practice was common place in Europe long after Muhammed was dead.
Being British I would point out that Margaret Beaufort was married off for the first time aged one. That was later annulled so she could be married off to Edmund Tudor, the half brother of Henry IV aged 12, he was literately twice her age, aka 24 at the time of the marriage. The future Henry VII was born less than a year later. Lady Margaret had a difficult birth with the future king, largely put down to her young age and size, and would never give birth again as a result.
At this point Mohamed had been dead over six centuries.
Actually Disney would never argue for that, because they would be on the hook for billions of dollars in back copyright payments for all the works that they have "used" out of copyright.
Personally I feel that if a firm or body wants to make use of a copyright extension, then back payments would be applicable to people who's copyright would not have expired had that extension been in place when they made use of the work. So Disney for example would need to payout on Pinocchio as Carlo Collodi only died in 1890, so in 1940 it would still have been under copyright by modern standards.
The castles where mostly abandoned because they became obsolete. A canon will punch a hole very easily in most castle walls. Secondly the majority of the castles in the United Kingdom are close to the border between Scotland and England. Even prior to the union of the crowns in 1603 the border disputes had faded away and you no longer needed a castle.
To be honest unless it was deliberately pulled down, almost if not all the castles in the United Kingdom still survive if only as ruins. The Victorians pulled lots down unfortunately.
The churches have survived better because they tended not to fall out of use. Though a good few where rebuilt bigger.
Growing up I could look out my bedroom window at a castle over 900 years old and a church over 1000 years old. Within walking distance was a Roman wall that was close to 2000 years old.
You want to disable passwords and use SSH keys when your worry is the NSA? Are you retarded? You will have to store your SSH keys somewhere and that immediately becomes a target for the NSA or other security agency. I have tried the SSH keys thing and it sucks from a usability point of view, and you end up with copies of your keys all over the place.
On the other hand I have a sufficiently long random (and I mean random) password that exists only in my head. If NSA or for me GCHQ want access they are going to have to break into my house, without me knowing about it. Now I guess that is possible but actually quite tough, but should I wish it would be quite easy to make that much much harder. However I don't see the point, because if they really wanted it they could just get a court order.
My Ethernet does 10km, 20km, 40km and 80km and 120km at various speeds up to 100Gbps all with off the shelf transceivers over either 1 or 2 cores of single mode fibre. Note not all combinations supported.
I would point out that you would have to eat and drink regardless of whether you are travelling or not. Consequently only any incremental cost over your normal food and drink can be counted as part of the travel costs.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could just ring up your credit card company and dispute the charge for a full refund.
Or you could just vaccinate your chickens against salmonella (as the U.K. does for example) and stop worrying about it. If you get salmonella from an egg in the U.K. you have eaten something with cheap nasty foreign eggs.
That because there where two products, Cool Edit and Cool Edit Pro. When Adobe purchased the software they dropped Cool Edit and turned Cool Edit Pro in to Audition. Interesting that you can run Audition in Wine, I have been running it in a VirtualBox Windows XP VM for some years now, but Wine would have lower overheads...
You could try freepascal, excellant Turbo Pascal 7 compatibility and even a large amount of Delphi compatibility. It's free and versions exist for Windows, OSX and Linux.
http://www.freepascal.org/
Yeah that's because you are used to watching cheap ass American TV. On the other hand living in the U.K. I expect and get that sort of production quality in all/most drama series produced primarily for the U.K. market.
No OJ was found not guilty because the prosecution spent ages building up the case that the murder wore a particular pair of gloves, when those gloves failed to fit in front of the jury their was reasonable doubt and the prosecution was lost as there was now reasonable doubt and the state of California required the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Another epic fail. The street address of a house say
29 Acacia Road
Nuttytown
NU5 5PD
and it's location either in lat/log or OSGB36 grid coordinates is not and never has been personal information.
No but then as far as I am aware no Jews have murdered a significant proportion of the editorial team of a publication for printing pictures of Moses or Abraham, ... Neither am I aware of any Jews demanding that such pictures never be published.
The problem is Sunni Muslims take offence at *ANY* depiction of the prophet, whether it mocks Islam or not. They would like to make it illegal for me to ever depict Muhammed visually. This is whole and totally unacceptable to myself and hundreds of millions of others.
And in the meantime they have to live and abide with the laws as they are.
The Christian religion is offended by the claim of Islam that Jesus is not the son of God. The inescapable conclusion of which is No Charlie Hebdo, no Koran.
One could further note that if Muslims claimed that Christianity was offensive to them because it claimed that Jesus was the son of God, it was around first, so it is still a fail on behalf of Islam.
If I am a Christian, Islam is an open insult against my religion (it denies that Jesus is the son of God). So apparently I have the right for protection from such open insults, which would from your reckoning amount to the banning of Islam and the Koran.
Hum how does that work exactly?
You seem to fail to understand the difference between a street address for a building and it's physical location (probably in OSGB36 coordinates) and that address being associated with one or more individuals.
In fact the Royal Mail already maintain such a database known as the Postcode Address File
http://www.poweredbypaf.com/en...
An epic failure to understand what is being proposed on your behalf.
The elephant in the room is that Islam is fundamentally and irreconcilably offensive to Christians because they say Jesus was not the son of God. There is nothing more blasphemous than denying this fundamental tenant of Christianity.
If we follow this logic Christian's would be perfectly justified in beating up any Muslim that they happened to come across. The problem with the majority of Muslim's is that they don't seem to be able to reconcile the very tolerance that allows them to practice an offensive religion in largely Christian (or at least ones that used to be) countries is a two way street. My personal view is if they can't accept and live with it then they should emigrate to a country with laws more to their liking.
Yeah I live in Scotland and voted No. Was really worried at the time, however the vote was nowhere near as close as advertised mostly due to what I would describe as voter intimidation by Yes campaigners.
However I would like another referendum next month so we can hammer the SNP's economic plans for the lies they always where and get another No vote to shut the them up permanently.
I would note the SNP have been very quite on the issue of oil and gas prices and the impact this would have had on their fiscal plans for an independent Scotland.
Dam I meant to point out that if you had bothered to read your wikipedia link you would note that the U.S. Supreme court has repeatedly ruled that ex post facto law is only prohibited for criminal law and not civil law. As copyright is civil law ex post facto effects of legislation is permitted.
Read my idea again, it is very specifically not ex post facto. Copyright extension is fine, but if you wish to make use of it then you have to consider your past actions. If you don't make use of it then you don't have to consider your past actions. As such it is not ex post facto as it does not change any pre-existing legal relationships.
I would note by your definition of ex post facto then any copyright extension as currently enacted is illegal in the U.S.A. because it changes the legal status of relationships that existed before the law was enacted.
For example I might have a copy of a piece of work that I had paid for on the understanding that by now it would be out of copyright, but the extension has changed that legal relationship. Copyright extension can by your definition only be ex post facto for works created *AFTER* the copyright extension is enacted.
Oh and finally not every legal jurisdiction on this planet bans ex post facto laws. So while it might be forbidden by the United States constitution (which I would note could always be amended), those laws don't extend to the entire planet.
Let's also be fair the practice was common place in Europe long after Muhammed was dead.
Being British I would point out that Margaret Beaufort was married off for the first time aged one. That was later annulled so she could be married off to Edmund Tudor, the half brother of Henry IV aged 12, he was literately twice her age, aka 24 at the time of the marriage. The future Henry VII was born less than a year later. Lady Margaret had a difficult birth with the future king, largely put down to her young age and size, and would never give birth again as a result.
At this point Mohamed had been dead over six centuries.
Actually Disney would never argue for that, because they would be on the hook for billions of dollars in back copyright payments for all the works that they have "used" out of copyright.
Personally I feel that if a firm or body wants to make use of a copyright extension, then back payments would be applicable to people who's copyright would not have expired had that extension been in place when they made use of the work. So Disney for example would need to payout on Pinocchio as Carlo Collodi only died in 1890, so in 1940 it would still have been under copyright by modern standards.
The castles where mostly abandoned because they became obsolete. A canon will punch a hole very easily in most castle walls. Secondly the majority of the castles in the United Kingdom are close to the border between Scotland and England. Even prior to the union of the crowns in 1603 the border disputes had faded away and you no longer needed a castle.
To be honest unless it was deliberately pulled down, almost if not all the castles in the United Kingdom still survive if only as ruins. The Victorians pulled lots down unfortunately.
The churches have survived better because they tended not to fall out of use. Though a good few where rebuilt bigger.
Growing up I could look out my bedroom window at a castle over 900 years old and a church over 1000 years old. Within walking distance was a Roman wall that was close to 2000 years old.
In what definition of western is Germany and hence Von Braun not included?
You want to disable passwords and use SSH keys when your worry is the NSA? Are you retarded? You will have to store your SSH keys somewhere and that immediately becomes a target for the NSA or other security agency. I have tried the SSH keys thing and it sucks from a usability point of view, and you end up with copies of your keys all over the place.
On the other hand I have a sufficiently long random (and I mean random) password that exists only in my head. If NSA or for me GCHQ want access they are going to have to break into my house, without me knowing about it. Now I guess that is possible but actually quite tough, but should I wish it would be quite easy to make that much much harder. However I don't see the point, because if they really wanted it they could just get a court order.
My Ethernet does 10km, 20km, 40km and 80km and 120km at various speeds up to 100Gbps all with off the shelf transceivers over either 1 or 2 cores of single mode fibre. Note not all combinations supported.
I would point out that you would have to eat and drink regardless of whether you are travelling or not. Consequently only any incremental cost over your normal food and drink can be counted as part of the travel costs.
Good job the Reaction Engines Sabre engine is not a jet engine then.
Of the Nordic countries only Norway was access to significant oil reserves.