Does that mean that everyone gets billions of dollars from MS?
No.... it does so with equal opportunity to all partners.
The amount of opportunity is near zero, but at least they're equal right?.
I think a crack might be beginning to form along the fabric of reality.... Microsoft just calling
their closed source Mobile platform more "Open" than Google's open source Android platform?
1. Most fellow officers of good cops are good cops.
2. Police officers do not necessarily enforce every single law on the books. Usually they have some sort of assignment. There are far too many laws on the books for them to enforce. Not that they will ignore a crime being committed, if there's an obvious illegal act, that will give them the opportunity to make an arrest
3. Sufficient power corrupts, to a degree dependant on the amount of power, the accountability/safeguard measures, and the characteristics of the person
on how wiretapping is the same as recording video.
It's not. It's outrageous and a violation of our free speech and freedom of the press rights. I would encourage all concerned citizens in the area to start
videotaping all officers and public officials at every possible moment in public.
Banning Facebook is ALWAYS a good idea! 1. If your workers/employees are demoralized by banned Facebook, you should fire them.
No... if someone tries to ban Facebook, I might fire that person for trying to ban FB, or re-assign them since they obviously have way too much free time if they're trying to make up clever rules just for the sake of making up rules,
see Dilbert 2011-05-05.
Morale is important, and unfettered web access, and being treated like an adult, is one of the few perks to keep the employees on speaking terms after they finish their 120 hour 7-day work week, that they get paid for 40 hours of, with non-specific hints of possible future raises when the product pans out.
If they couldn't access their FB, many of them would probably insist on going home before 8pm after only 9.5 hours of work (lunch and 2 15 minute breaks of course don't count as work), and we just can't have that.
Actually, numerous court decisions have upheld that the police and government have no legal or Constitutional obligation to provide protection to the public. An example of this would be Warren v. District of Columbia:
No... that's not what the court's decision was. The court's decision was government is not liable to individual victims of criminal acts, and the police don't have a duty to provide personal protection to specific individuals at their request.
Police still have a duty to protect society and the public safety in particular; no court decision has contravened that. If a police officer directly encounters a danger to the public, they do have a duty to take actions to preserve the protection of the public.
They don't incur liability if they fail to prevent individual bystanders from being harmed by the criminal.
They may claim they never signed/agreed to the GPL, and therefore aren't bound by any requirements of it.
Specific performance remedy is a type of equitable relief and requires a valid contract/agreement between the parties.
In that case, the plaintiff would have little choice but to pursue a copyright infringement claim, and specific performance would be off the table.
Without agreeing to the GPL, with the code copyrighted, and no license, there would be infringement...
so the remedy options would basically be monetary/statutory damages or injuctions.
Disclosure of source might be a settlement option, but it's not a thing the judge may order, any more than the judge could simply assign copyright of the product to the open source developer whose copyright was infringed.
Hamstersoft has two options: either immediately cease all distribution of the infringing binaries, or provide the full sources under one of the methods specified in the GPL.
No.... Hamstersoft has two options that would please the open source community.
Hamstersoft has a third option until forced to do otherwise: keep what they are doing; give it to their lawyers.
Dispute any infringement claims or wait to be sued/ordered by a judge to do something different.
For example, AVR libc is under BSD license. Many AVR microcontrollers are flashed with programs that have been compiled with AVR-GCC and contain some code from AVR libc.
Bad example. Linking a C program against a libc does not include enough code to make the program a derivative work of the libc; they are not bound to distribute the final product under the BSD license despite using a BSD licensed compiler.
Only the libc itself needs to be distributed in accordance with the terms of the license, if they also distribute a copy of the libc.
The SSD costs more than banning Facebook, which will recover an unproductive 3 hours / day.
But banning Facebook will negatively impact employee morale, causing employees to become less productive,
whereas banning SSDs to be installed in all the employee workstations for faster boot times will increase employee morale, causing them to be more ready to work during the time when everything gets done (TM); E.g. the first couple hours of work, before the meetings start.
And when the goverment has finished selling just about all of the public land, train stations, bus stations you'll get to enjoy your lack of freedom to speak in those oh so not public places, you know
There are plenty of places to peacefully assemble legally.
For example, on a consenting party's private property, or, with the proper permit,
the public areas outside the train station, public parks, libraries, etc.
Train stations and Bus stations exist to provide a specific function.
There is no right to organize/conduct a demonstration at times or in venues that the government doesn't consent that
demonstrations be undertaken in.
A good example of places where organized demonstrations by members of the public cannot be undertaken is inside the classroom at a public school during school hours.
Just because a lot of people are on a piece of land and it's public property, or privately operated public service
does not make disorderly behavior/disturbance of the peace legal.
I will acknowledge that a small object, longer than it is wide, somewhat silver in color, crossed from somewhere off the left side of the screen behind the cop and landed on the platform near the upper right corner of the screen.
You mean, one of the two knives?
The CNN video and news coverage is very clear about what happened.
The 911 caller said the man was armed with multiple knives. BART officials and several police officers all confirmed this, the man was uncooperative. He was hit with a taser TWICE, and attempted to charge officers.
Officers are in communication with each other, and the officer's backup shot the man down.
So what is the silver object? Dunno, but this video doesn't show any weapons, or the status/demeanor of perp.
So he looks entirely innocent and unarmed according to the video.
So you have no idea what it is, but you ignorantly assume it couldn't possibly be a weapon.
I would say you are in denial.
Hmm, I wasn't aware that the penalty for throwing a knife at police is execution without a trial.
This is not a punishment or an execution; this is defense of the officer's person and the public.
A shot perp might or might not survive, depending on where they are hit. The officer did not go over to the shot person's fallen body and pump his head full of bullets.
If an assailant walks up to any citizen who is carrying a firearm, throws a bottle at the person and misses, pulls out a throwing knife, throws it at them and misses, pulls out another knife; their target has a right to draw their weapon and shoot the perp in their defense, if they think their own life is in immediate danger, whether they are a police officer or just a citizen.
The security officers have additional rights; they can shoot if the perp has demonstrated lethal force and presents an immediate danger to the public.
Security couldn't have known if he had no more weapons or not, they would have to assume he did.
He threw a knife and bottle at officers, that proves in fact he was an armed man, attempting to kill members
of the public, an imminent danger, and that's what matters.
As soon as a perpetrator attempts to use deadly force to resist officers; officers have a right to
defend themselves and the public, which includes responding to deadly force with deadly force.
Now the real question is, do I also own the IP the domain name is pointing to if I have a static IP address, or am I leasing it?
The concern that some day organizations might try to claim some sort of property right to an IP address was thought up a long time ago.
The ISP assigned the address, if it was obtained in the past 12 years [or so], had to sign the RSA, which contains the following clause, as a condition of being assigned IP addresses:
Applicant acknowledges and agrees that the number resources are not property (real, personal, or intellectual) and that Applicant does not acquire any property rights in or to any number resources by virtue of this Agreement or otherwise. Applicant further agrees that it will not attempt, directly or indirectly, to obtain or assert any trademark, service mark, copyright, or any other form of property rights in any number resources in the United States or any other country.
This is Canadian. Canadian and UK law don't have as much baggage attached to the concept of "property" as the US does. Through an accident of legal history
The big deal here is... if the UDRP cannot be applied to Canadian residents, then the UDRP is inherently unfair and should be crossed off the books.
The whole point of the UDRP is it's to be universal.
The UDRP is unfair anyways, and should be crossed off the books anyways.
The concept of 'disputing' a registration based on what the name is, should go away.
You want to secure your name? Use a 'registration by proxy' service in Canada, with a Canadian trustee managing your domain and leveraging Canadian property law to defend your domain against any UDRP claims...
They could sell it to you for an inflated price, or never sell it to you again if they felt so inclined.
They can and some already do this.
Ever hear of "redemption fee"? If your domain goes into redemption, they'll happily charge you $100+ for redemption
The registrar can hold onto it as long as you like.
If you don't like it, take it up with ICANN.
Personally, I think we have a conflict of interest situation here, where registrars are encouraged to act in a manner inconsistent with their customers' interests in regards to their own duties -- domain registrars should not be allowed to own domains other than a small number of 'pre defined' domains they list on their application when becoming accredited as a registrar.
ICANN should change the policies so that registrars have to be neutral parties and not profit from domain expiration.
For some reason... on seeing 'Anonymous' doing so much... I begin to think there are more than one groups that call themselves anonymous... and possibly a bunch of hoaxes from attention-seekers
2) If the protesters are interfering with mass transit, they're just being assholes. Yes, it's sad that someone got killed. No, this doesn't mean that tens of thousands of people should have their schedules fucked around with.
Not only that... but if protesters are interfering with mass transit, they are committing a crime and should be arrested, if they do not leave/disperse when ordered to by officials.
There are legal means of protest.
And assemblies are legal, in some but not all public areas.
Once you enter an area that requires a ticket or that is private property, you are no longer in a public venue for free unhampered expression; you are in an area for paying customers.
And property owners (including the government) have a right to not allow protests on their private property.
Not to worry, the electrical power generating industry, just like the oil industry, would never allow this to make it to market.
Then the sensible thing would be for someone to develop this in secret, and to unveil it and bring it to market the same day.
How you think the Electric power generating industry will stop it from coming to market if the project is under deep cover, so the Electric power generating industry has no warning, and it's on the market, with many thousands of units sold, and many orders, as soon as they learn of it?
IANAnuke: So what is going on here? Is this a well known phenomenon? Is it really possible to get more energy out than you put in via the laser?
If the laser increases thermal energy from below an energy of activation to above an energy of activation of a substance, then yes.
In that case, the energy wouldn't be coming from the laser, it would be coming from a volatile ready-to-react mixture of chemicals that simply wasn't hot enough to start a thermal positive feedback loop and start reacting on its own, without added heat from the laser.
Slashdot Mirror
Does that mean that everyone gets billions of dollars from MS?
No.... it does so with equal opportunity to all partners. The amount of opportunity is near zero, but at least they're equal right?.
I think a crack might be beginning to form along the fabric of reality.... Microsoft just calling their closed source Mobile platform more "Open" than Google's open source Android platform?
1. Most fellow officers of good cops are good cops.
2. Police officers do not necessarily enforce every single law on the books. Usually they have some sort of assignment. There are far too many laws on the books for them to enforce. Not that they will ignore a crime being committed, if there's an obvious illegal act, that will give them the opportunity to make an arrest
3. Sufficient power corrupts, to a degree dependant on the amount of power, the accountability/safeguard measures, and the characteristics of the person
Poor attempt at irony. You used a real universal truth to illustrate a bad stereotype.
What? Universal? Uh-uh. No, sorry... had he said StarWars-Loving-Nerds it would have been a poor attempt at irony.
on how wiretapping is the same as recording video.
It's not. It's outrageous and a violation of our free speech and freedom of the press rights. I would encourage all concerned citizens in the area to start videotaping all officers and public officials at every possible moment in public.
Banning Facebook is ALWAYS a good idea! 1. If your workers/employees are demoralized by banned Facebook, you should fire them.
No... if someone tries to ban Facebook, I might fire that person for trying to ban FB, or re-assign them since they obviously have way too much free time if they're trying to make up clever rules just for the sake of making up rules, see Dilbert 2011-05-05.
Morale is important, and unfettered web access, and being treated like an adult, is one of the few perks to keep the employees on speaking terms after they finish their 120 hour 7-day work week, that they get paid for 40 hours of, with non-specific hints of possible future raises when the product pans out.
If they couldn't access their FB, many of them would probably insist on going home before 8pm after only 9.5 hours of work (lunch and 2 15 minute breaks of course don't count as work), and we just can't have that.
You know... sabotage ? (EG)
Actually, numerous court decisions have upheld that the police and government have no legal or Constitutional obligation to provide protection to the public. An example of this would be Warren v. District of Columbia:
No... that's not what the court's decision was. The court's decision was government is not liable to individual victims of criminal acts, and the police don't have a duty to provide personal protection to specific individuals at their request.
Police still have a duty to protect society and the public safety in particular; no court decision has contravened that. If a police officer directly encounters a danger to the public, they do have a duty to take actions to preserve the protection of the public.
They don't incur liability if they fail to prevent individual bystanders from being harmed by the criminal.
They may claim they never signed/agreed to the GPL, and therefore aren't bound by any requirements of it. Specific performance remedy is a type of equitable relief and requires a valid contract/agreement between the parties.
In that case, the plaintiff would have little choice but to pursue a copyright infringement claim, and specific performance would be off the table.
Without agreeing to the GPL, with the code copyrighted, and no license, there would be infringement... so the remedy options would basically be monetary/statutory damages or injuctions.
Disclosure of source might be a settlement option, but it's not a thing the judge may order, any more than the judge could simply assign copyright of the product to the open source developer whose copyright was infringed.
Hamstersoft has two options: either immediately cease all distribution of the infringing binaries, or provide the full sources under one of the methods specified in the GPL.
No.... Hamstersoft has two options that would please the open source community.
Hamstersoft has a third option until forced to do otherwise: keep what they are doing; give it to their lawyers. Dispute any infringement claims or wait to be sued/ordered by a judge to do something different.
This isn't really any different than stories about random violent crimes or bad weather in other states.
Random crimes that are significant for the open source community are Slashdot news.
There aren't that many so brazen GPL violations reported. There are a heck of a lot more violent crimes in the world than brazen GPL violations.
For example, AVR libc is under BSD license. Many AVR microcontrollers are flashed with programs that have been compiled with AVR-GCC and contain some code from AVR libc.
Bad example. Linking a C program against a libc does not include enough code to make the program a derivative work of the libc; they are not bound to distribute the final product under the BSD license despite using a BSD licensed compiler.
Only the libc itself needs to be distributed in accordance with the terms of the license, if they also distribute a copy of the libc.
The SSD costs more than banning Facebook, which will recover an unproductive 3 hours / day.
But banning Facebook will negatively impact employee morale, causing employees to become less productive, whereas banning SSDs to be installed in all the employee workstations for faster boot times will increase employee morale, causing them to be more ready to work during the time when everything gets done (TM); E.g. the first couple hours of work, before the meetings start.
His experience matches mine with the shitload of crap many multinationals put on their desktops.
Sounds like a system administration problem; only the software absolutely necessary to do your work should actually be loading.
My work PC boots in less than a minute.
And when the goverment has finished selling just about all of the public land, train stations, bus stations you'll get to enjoy your lack of freedom to speak in those oh so not public places, you know
There are plenty of places to peacefully assemble legally. For example, on a consenting party's private property, or, with the proper permit, the public areas outside the train station, public parks, libraries, etc.
Train stations and Bus stations exist to provide a specific function. There is no right to organize/conduct a demonstration at times or in venues that the government doesn't consent that demonstrations be undertaken in.
A good example of places where organized demonstrations by members of the public cannot be undertaken is inside the classroom at a public school during school hours.
Just because a lot of people are on a piece of land and it's public property, or privately operated public service does not make disorderly behavior/disturbance of the peace legal.
I will acknowledge that a small object, longer than it is wide, somewhat silver in color, crossed from somewhere off the left side of the screen behind the cop and landed on the platform near the upper right corner of the screen.
You mean, one of the two knives?
The CNN video and news coverage is very clear about what happened. The 911 caller said the man was armed with multiple knives. BART officials and several police officers all confirmed this, the man was uncooperative. He was hit with a taser TWICE, and attempted to charge officers.
Officers are in communication with each other, and the officer's backup shot the man down.
So what is the silver object? Dunno, but this video doesn't show any weapons, or the status/demeanor of perp. So he looks entirely innocent and unarmed according to the video.
So you have no idea what it is, but you ignorantly assume it couldn't possibly be a weapon. I would say you are in denial.
Hmm, I wasn't aware that the penalty for throwing a knife at police is execution without a trial.
This is not a punishment or an execution; this is defense of the officer's person and the public. A shot perp might or might not survive, depending on where they are hit. The officer did not go over to the shot person's fallen body and pump his head full of bullets.
If an assailant walks up to any citizen who is carrying a firearm, throws a bottle at the person and misses, pulls out a throwing knife, throws it at them and misses, pulls out another knife; their target has a right to draw their weapon and shoot the perp in their defense, if they think their own life is in immediate danger, whether they are a police officer or just a citizen.
The security officers have additional rights; they can shoot if the perp has demonstrated lethal force and presents an immediate danger to the public.
Upon throwing the knife he became unarmed.
Security couldn't have known if he had no more weapons or not, they would have to assume he did.
He threw a knife and bottle at officers, that proves in fact he was an armed man, attempting to kill members of the public, an imminent danger, and that's what matters.
As soon as a perpetrator attempts to use deadly force to resist officers; officers have a right to defend themselves and the public, which includes responding to deadly force with deadly force.
Now the real question is, do I also own the IP the domain name is pointing to if I have a static IP address, or am I leasing it?
The concern that some day organizations might try to claim some sort of property right to an IP address was thought up a long time ago.
The ISP assigned the address, if it was obtained in the past 12 years [or so], had to sign the RSA, which contains the following clause, as a condition of being assigned IP addresses:
This is Canadian. Canadian and UK law don't have as much baggage attached to the concept of "property" as the US does. Through an accident of legal history
The big deal here is... if the UDRP cannot be applied to Canadian residents, then the UDRP is inherently unfair and should be crossed off the books. The whole point of the UDRP is it's to be universal.
The UDRP is unfair anyways, and should be crossed off the books anyways. The concept of 'disputing' a registration based on what the name is, should go away.
You want to secure your name? Use a 'registration by proxy' service in Canada, with a Canadian trustee managing your domain and leveraging Canadian property law to defend your domain against any UDRP claims...
They could sell it to you for an inflated price, or never sell it to you again if they felt so inclined.
They can and some already do this.
Ever hear of "redemption fee"? If your domain goes into redemption, they'll happily charge you $100+ for redemption
The registrar can hold onto it as long as you like.
If you don't like it, take it up with ICANN. Personally, I think we have a conflict of interest situation here, where registrars are encouraged to act in a manner inconsistent with their customers' interests in regards to their own duties -- domain registrars should not be allowed to own domains other than a small number of 'pre defined' domains they list on their application when becoming accredited as a registrar.
ICANN should change the policies so that registrars have to be neutral parties and not profit from domain expiration.
For some reason... on seeing 'Anonymous' doing so much... I begin to think there are more than one groups that call themselves anonymous... and possibly a bunch of hoaxes from attention-seekers
2) If the protesters are interfering with mass transit, they're just being assholes. Yes, it's sad that someone got killed. No, this doesn't mean that tens of thousands of people should have their schedules fucked around with.
Not only that... but if protesters are interfering with mass transit, they are committing a crime and should be arrested, if they do not leave/disperse when ordered to by officials.
There are legal means of protest. And assemblies are legal, in some but not all public areas.
Once you enter an area that requires a ticket or that is private property, you are no longer in a public venue for free unhampered expression; you are in an area for paying customers.
And property owners (including the government) have a right to not allow protests on their private property.
I had oil heat in my house when I lived in New Jersey. I had a 500 gal oil tank, which probably lasted most of the winter.
1 Gallon of Gasoline = ~114,000 BTUs.
1 Kilowatt Hour = 3,412.14 BTU; or, rather, each Gallon of gasoline contains 33.41 kWh.
You need approximately 40,000 kWh to power a house for one year. Or the energy output of burning 1200 gallons of gasoline.
If each 1 gram of Thorium burned is the amount of energy output equal to 7500 gallons gasoline, then 0.2 grams = 1,500 gallons of gasoline
And 1 kilogram = 0.2 grams * 5000.
So at 100% efficiency, you have 5000 years of possible capacity from 1kG of thorium.
At say 1% efficiency, you still have 100 years.
Not to worry, the electrical power generating industry, just like the oil industry, would never allow this to make it to market.
Then the sensible thing would be for someone to develop this in secret, and to unveil it and bring it to market the same day.
How you think the Electric power generating industry will stop it from coming to market if the project is under deep cover, so the Electric power generating industry has no warning, and it's on the market, with many thousands of units sold, and many orders, as soon as they learn of it?
IANAnuke: So what is going on here? Is this a well known phenomenon? Is it really possible to get more energy out than you put in via the laser?
If the laser increases thermal energy from below an energy of activation to above an energy of activation of a substance, then yes.
In that case, the energy wouldn't be coming from the laser, it would be coming from a volatile ready-to-react mixture of chemicals that simply wasn't hot enough to start a thermal positive feedback loop and start reacting on its own, without added heat from the laser.