We have to kill millions of rodents to protect ourselves from disease and to secure our food supplies. Even if you decide to live as a vegetarian mice and rats need to be killed e.g. for grain supplies.
It's really absurd to put the focus on the inconsequential number of lab mice.
We should rather make sure that the scientists who use these lab mice to cure and treat horrible diseases get the respect and public backing they deserve.
It's not useful for tracking you, at least no more so than your v4 address was.
That's implementation-specific - some systems (is Linux still doing that by default?) by default include the MAC address in the IPv6 address for some reason.
(Note: this is completely different from using the MAC address in your local network as you usually do with IPv4. On IPv4 the MAC address is not visible outside of the local network, on IPv6 it is - unless you replace it by enabling privacy addressing.)
It will be interesting to see how internet-enabled device which you don't completely control - like smart phones - will handle this in the future.
That seems a bit unfair - after all they did design (and build) the ship to carry enough life boats, and they still fitted it with more life boats than they were required to. They also had a radio operator and they had a variety of safety features which - while not making the ship unsinkable - at least gave them time to evacuate quite a number of people before the ship sank.
Obviously, an accident like that will show you things that *can* go wrong, and that's something you can learn from.
Right, so lets say now the German court issues an injunction preventing MS from attempting to circumvent the earlier injunction via US courts. Not interfering with US jurisdiction? Seriously?
Of course the German court can't tell Microsoft what to do in a US court.
The judge's position is that Motorola is seeking to use the threat of injunction in Germany to try to force MS to settle for less reasonable terms before the U.S. judge makes his decision. The judge agreed that Motorola was attempting to pre-empt a decision by the U.S. court to their advantage.
Which seems entirely legitimate. If MS has the right to use those patents in the US, but not in Germany - because different laws apply there, then why shouldn't Motorola use that to their advantage?
I don't have much pity for them.
Having pity is not a legal concept. MS is abusing their patents, too - e.g. to extort money from Samsung for an OS which they contributed nothing to. If MS is in the right in this case, the judge should find for them, if Motorola happens to be right then the judge has to adhere to that, too.
"If Motorola didn't want foreign patents subject to this court it would not have offered them to Microsoft,"
Also nonsensical. Motorola can offer MS a license for the US, for Germany or for the world. If there patents are found invalid in the US but valid in Germany, then they can still ask for the license in Germany. Initially offering a world-wide license means nothing regarding jurisdiction. Likewise MS would not lose the right to ask for a free license in Germany (assuming that was the legal situation) just because a US court found they need one in the US.
You also need to have enough facilities (showers, rest rooms, kitchen, fridge space) and it needs to be safe, considering that there might be more than the usual number of people in the building.
It's great that you enjoy it, but different people like different things, and that's fine. It's fine as long as you don't expect *others* (who may not be interested in the least) to go that extra distance for it.
Personally I find it hard to see past the betrayal of every ideal the Olympic games ever stood for, the cheating in form of drug use, the abuse of children to push some nation's medal lists, the obscene waste of money to build an unnecessary sports infrastructure and the organized corruption which drives the selection of the location.
That means they eventually have to answer to shareholders
Now what happens if the advertising revenues go down, because - despite the more frequent placement of slashvertisements - fewer people see ads since they don't visit Slashdot so often anymore? Pissing off your users is frequently not a good way to increase your revenue.
Well there are many problems - like tax collection, corruption etc. However spending is also one. Especially if you've already lost most of your money through failing collection, corruption etc.
Of course it's desirable that everyone has access to education, but that can't simply be legislated - a way must be found to finance it as well. What Poland is doing there seems a like an excellent approach to achieve that goal. eReaders are in the affordable range already, and will become even cheaper in the future. The investments made now in free content will make sure that good quality textbooks will be available at negligible costs for the foreseeable future.
Well, I kinda buy that someone does that initially. How long does it take until you notice that other people start to comment on your status, though? Besides, social networks are intended for making contacts. Granted you can also simply use them for exchanging messages with people you already know, but social networks don't exactly hide what they are about.
At some point you have accept responsibility for the way you act in public.
So anytime anyone accesses your publicly available data you want to get an alert? I don't see how that wouldn't flood you with useless messages. Or do you want to get an alert if your data is accessed by a specific application? It would seem trivial for an app designer to get around that. Also why bother installing a "doucher alert app" when you could just as easily simply restrict what you post in public?
Commenting on the SIM card dispute between Apple and Nokia. He's an expert you know?
As long as he keeps commenting on topics he knows squat about and gets quoted by the press, he gains an ever increasing list of publications citing him. Which means he must be an expert, so more publications will quote whatever nonsense he happens to write.
UK citizens have protection via the European Convention on Human Rights, though. Article 10 deals with freedom of expression. I don't know if that would help his case, it's not an unrestricted right. However if his lawyer thinks it would help, he could appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
The issue before congress was whether the mandate was a potential violation of the rights of religious institutions.
The mandate in this case being about women's health issues. How does this translate into excluding women completely from the discussion? No matter where you stand on this: obviously women should have been given the chance to argue why their rights do not infringe on religious freedom of other people.
The Green party is well established in Germany anyway. They actually took a beating in Saarland this time, but they are running the state of Baden-Württemberg with the SPD as their junior partners and they are participating in several other state governments.
I think the PP is an important addition - I agree that green issues are vital, but we also need to protect the foundation of our democratic system, otherwise we have no chance of addressing these issues. The main problem with stuff like ACTA etc is not even the content of the treaty (though it's bad enough) but that the route taken to implement it, basically subverts democratic control. That needs to be stopped urgently.
That seems more or less the official PRC version of Tibetan history. To start it's worth pointing out that Tibet has it's own language, culture and writing system and is ethnically separate from the Han people who make up the majority of the PRC.
Tibet had been an autonomous region, since the mid 19th century Qing influence was mainly symbolic and of little practical consequence. In 1904 the British invaded, in 1910 the Qing did, and in 1912 the Tibetans got rid of the Qing. In 1950 the PRC conquered Tibet.
There is more, of course - but given that you left out everything going against the PRC case, it makes sense to add a few of those back in.
Ultimately what it comes down to: if the Tibetans don't want to belong to the PRC they shouldn't be forced to. After so many years of government by the PRC the Tibetans should now be able to see how much they benefit if they stay part of it. Surely there was enough time to convince them?
Give them a free and open vote. If after all this time the people of Tibet still don't want to be governed by Beijing, then Tibet does not belong to China.
Slashdot Mirror
We have to kill millions of rodents to protect ourselves from disease and to secure our food supplies. Even if you decide to live as a vegetarian mice and rats need to be killed e.g. for grain supplies. It's really absurd to put the focus on the inconsequential number of lab mice.
We should rather make sure that the scientists who use these lab mice to cure and treat horrible diseases get the respect and public backing they deserve.
It's not useful for tracking you, at least no more so than your v4 address was.
That's implementation-specific - some systems (is Linux still doing that by default?) by default include the MAC address in the IPv6 address for some reason.
(Note: this is completely different from using the MAC address in your local network as you usually do with IPv4. On IPv4 the MAC address is not visible outside of the local network, on IPv6 it is - unless you replace it by enabling privacy addressing.)
It will be interesting to see how internet-enabled device which you don't completely control - like smart phones - will handle this in the future.
People never do anything until someone gets hurt.
That seems a bit unfair - after all they did design (and build) the ship to carry enough life boats, and they still fitted it with more life boats than they were required to. They also had a radio operator and they had a variety of safety features which - while not making the ship unsinkable - at least gave them time to evacuate quite a number of people before the ship sank.
Obviously, an accident like that will show you things that *can* go wrong, and that's something you can learn from.
"Heretical" - seriously? From their position your religion is just as much nonsense as theirs to you.
Right, so lets say now the German court issues an injunction preventing MS from attempting to circumvent the earlier injunction via US courts. Not interfering with US jurisdiction? Seriously?
Of course the German court can't tell Microsoft what to do in a US court.
So the US court has not interfered with German courts: it only ruled what the company Motorola may do should it win this battle in Germany.
Which is interfering with the German court since it prevents Motorola to assert their rights in Germany under German law.
The judge's position is that Motorola is seeking to use the threat of injunction in Germany to try to force MS to settle for less reasonable terms before the U.S. judge makes his decision. The judge agreed that Motorola was attempting to pre-empt a decision by the U.S. court to their advantage.
Which seems entirely legitimate. If MS has the right to use those patents in the US, but not in Germany - because different laws apply there, then why shouldn't Motorola use that to their advantage?
I don't have much pity for them.
Having pity is not a legal concept. MS is abusing their patents, too - e.g. to extort money from Samsung for an OS which they contributed nothing to. If MS is in the right in this case, the judge should find for them, if Motorola happens to be right then the judge has to adhere to that, too.
"If Motorola didn't want foreign patents subject to this court it would not have offered them to Microsoft,"
Also nonsensical. Motorola can offer MS a license for the US, for Germany or for the world. If there patents are found invalid in the US but valid in Germany, then they can still ask for the license in Germany. Initially offering a world-wide license means nothing regarding jurisdiction. Likewise MS would not lose the right to ask for a free license in Germany (assuming that was the legal situation) just because a US court found they need one in the US.
So is there anything you could actually accomplish with this "network"? I assume you are correct, which would then make the article complete hogwash.
You also need to have enough facilities (showers, rest rooms, kitchen, fridge space) and it needs to be safe, considering that there might be more than the usual number of people in the building.
It's great that you enjoy it, but different people like different things, and that's fine. It's fine as long as you don't expect *others* (who may not be interested in the least) to go that extra distance for it.
Personally I find it hard to see past the betrayal of every ideal the Olympic games ever stood for, the cheating in form of drug use, the abuse of children to push some nation's medal lists, the obscene waste of money to build an unnecessary sports infrastructure and the organized corruption which drives the selection of the location.
Yes, but hearing about this policy makes me wary of buying at Best Buy, and I'm not returning stuff frequently.
That means they eventually have to answer to shareholders
Now what happens if the advertising revenues go down, because - despite the more frequent placement of slashvertisements - fewer people see ads since they don't visit Slashdot so often anymore? Pissing off your users is frequently not a good way to increase your revenue.
Well there are many problems - like tax collection, corruption etc. However spending is also one. Especially if you've already lost most of your money through failing collection, corruption etc.
Of course it's desirable that everyone has access to education, but that can't simply be legislated - a way must be found to finance it as well. What Poland is doing there seems a like an excellent approach to achieve that goal. eReaders are in the affordable range already, and will become even cheaper in the future. The investments made now in free content will make sure that good quality textbooks will be available at negligible costs for the foreseeable future.
Well, I kinda buy that someone does that initially. How long does it take until you notice that other people start to comment on your status, though? Besides, social networks are intended for making contacts. Granted you can also simply use them for exchanging messages with people you already know, but social networks don't exactly hide what they are about.
At some point you have accept responsibility for the way you act in public.
So anytime anyone accesses your publicly available data you want to get an alert? I don't see how that wouldn't flood you with useless messages. Or do you want to get an alert if your data is accessed by a specific application? It would seem trivial for an app designer to get around that. Also why bother installing a "doucher alert app" when you could just as easily simply restrict what you post in public?
In both cases it's about not having a job unless you give up your privacy rights to the corporation.
Where is Florian Mueller?
Commenting on the SIM card dispute between Apple and Nokia. He's an expert you know?
As long as he keeps commenting on topics he knows squat about and gets quoted by the press, he gains an ever increasing list of publications citing him. Which means he must be an expert, so more publications will quote whatever nonsense he happens to write.
Being able to predict behavior and optimize the structure is what moves an idea from a proof of concept to something that could possibly be produced.
UK citizens have protection via the European Convention on Human Rights, though. Article 10 deals with freedom of expression. I don't know if that would help his case, it's not an unrestricted right. However if his lawyer thinks it would help, he could appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
Well, unless Facebook has different rates for advertising specifically to ladyboys, they would be off topic in this discussion.
Just remember that the constitution does not grant you the right to fly either.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The issue before congress was whether the mandate was a potential violation of the rights of religious institutions.
The mandate in this case being about women's health issues. How does this translate into excluding women completely from the discussion? No matter where you stand on this: obviously women should have been given the chance to argue why their rights do not infringe on religious freedom of other people.
The Green party is well established in Germany anyway. They actually took a beating in Saarland this time, but they are running the state of Baden-Württemberg with the SPD as their junior partners and they are participating in several other state governments.
I think the PP is an important addition - I agree that green issues are vital, but we also need to protect the foundation of our democratic system, otherwise we have no chance of addressing these issues. The main problem with stuff like ACTA etc is not even the content of the treaty (though it's bad enough) but that the route taken to implement it, basically subverts democratic control. That needs to be stopped urgently.
Don't you have a chance in the EU elections, though?
That seems more or less the official PRC version of Tibetan history. To start it's worth pointing out that Tibet has it's own language, culture and writing system and is ethnically separate from the Han people who make up the majority of the PRC.
Tibet had been an autonomous region, since the mid 19th century Qing influence was mainly symbolic and of little practical consequence. In 1904 the British invaded, in 1910 the Qing did, and in 1912 the Tibetans got rid of the Qing. In 1950 the PRC conquered Tibet.
There is more, of course - but given that you left out everything going against the PRC case, it makes sense to add a few of those back in.
Ultimately what it comes down to: if the Tibetans don't want to belong to the PRC they shouldn't be forced to. After so many years of government by the PRC the Tibetans should now be able to see how much they benefit if they stay part of it. Surely there was enough time to convince them?
Give them a free and open vote. If after all this time the people of Tibet still don't want to be governed by Beijing, then Tibet does not belong to China.