In particular, the "Imperial" style of measurements are all easier to divide into equal portions by prime numbers.
How many prime number pounds can you divide one stone into? Or a pound into ounces? The biggest problem with Imperial measurements is that they aren't all anything except different and confusing. Your justification works only for units of length and the temperature difference between the boiling point and freezing point of water at normal atmospheric pressure at sea level, and the later involves the extra complication of an offset of 32.
The buses around here (developing world country in South East Asia) have Wifi.
Have wifi in the airport terminal.
At how much extra per month? Airport Wifi is free in most of the airports I've visited the past few years. International 3G roaming on the other hand requires access to the same level of funds that would cover RIAAs claims against Limewire.
Didn't Princeton have a similar problem with iPhones
Yes. Confusingly the story about iPhones having the same basic problem is linked to from the summary under "...disrupting Wi-Fi traffic for Android and non-Android devices alike."
Sure seems to me that Princeton should look at its own rules and infrastructure to see why it has to be so strict when so many others don't have this problem...
As IPv4 addresses become a scarce commodity, expect more organizations to start controlling more tightly how they are used. The protocols are designed to handle this type of issue, but if IP addresses are scarce and devices using them beyond their lease are many, the server can end up looping around trying to give out addresses that should be free but aren't, rather than just rejecting new connections.
WebGL is an inefficient compatibility layer hindering Microsoft's precious native HTML5 performance. Just take a look at their demo where they get a whopping 1000 fish swimming around an empty fishbowl at once, only obtainable using native IE10 on native Windows 7. The Firefox guys were only able to get a paltry 50,000 swimming around their finely textured aquarium using WebGL.
Skype doesn't allow installing on the SD Card (at least the version I tried and promptly uninstalled a few months ago due to it being a resource hog and a battery drain), so even if your hypothetical permission problem for apps installed on SD exists, I don't think it is the problem here. Skype seems to not really be written as an Android app, but as a native app with a thin Android wrapper. I suspect that is the real problem - the install asks for a bunch of permissions that the app should not really need, since the app has not been designed to fit into the Android sandbox from the start.
Which cash register maker takes 30% of turnover, and keeps hold of the parent's wallet for 15 minutes after a legitimate purchase while allowing the kids to help themselves to everything shiny they see on the shelves?
More people need to complain to government bodies with oversight over the industry about cases like these, or start a class action suit against the companies that profit from these scams (ie the mobile phone companies as well as the scammers). The way mobile phone companies make it so easy to subscribe to premium SMS services over the web, or by replying to a deceptive text message, and then the way they shrug their shoulders and play blame the victim when you phone them to complain demonstrates that self regulation is not an option when the company in a position to put things right has an economic interest in allowing things to continue as is.
It might be at their business's core, however, they provide services which many of us embrace while they last and it helps us be more productive (exceptions exist)
You seem to be missing the fact that these companies includes Facebook and Twitter as well as Google. Or are you saying that the exceptions make up the majority here?
He did think up his approach in 1960, even if it took 47 years to reach version 1.0. And hypertext wasn't the only thing he came up with. Teledildonics is another invention of his that is yet to reach it's peak.
What is wrong with simultaneous Alphas of Firefox 5.0 and Firefox 6.0? Surely it's better than coming up with another non-standard term for a pre-release state that is neither a Greek letter, nor a plain English word, so who knows where the hell it fits into things?
Or if they are really convinced that their users are too thick to handle two Alpha's at once, they'd have been better off redefining the May17 release as a Gamma release (if an RC is too conventional for them) and calling this the Beta.
Any denial should be enough for the accuser to have to reveal their evidence. But I'm not on the tribunal, so really its up to them. My expectation is that it will work similarly to a speeding camera ticket. You can deny being in that location at that time, but you'd better hope that the photo evidence is fuzzy enough that there is doubt about the number plate, or that the guy who cloned your plate is driving a different model or at least color of car, or have some convincing evidence that the speed camera calibration is out. Similarly you'll have to cast some convincing doubt on the accuser's collection of IP addresses, or your ISP's records to have some change of getting off without solid evidence that it wasn't you.
My understanding is that it will start from a presumption of guilt (ie, the accuser doesn't really need to provide real evidence, and if the accused fails to defend they will automatically lose, with the tribunal only considering what the penalty should be based on the seriousness of the accusations). But once evidence is filed in defence, it will come down to the merits of that evidence vs the accuser's, just as in a proper court of justice, only it is still in front of the tribunal so the cost of defending should not be exhorbitant. So the law is still starting from a flawed point of view, but the changes that have been made in its final form at least give the chance of something resembling a fair process.
Note that compared to existing law, your first two accusations are guaranteed to be warnings only (providing you remain within the boundaries of what this bill covers). Also the limit of the fine that can be imposed by the tribunal is $15k, which is a couple of orders of magnitude lower than what is typically asked for in your average RIAA filesharing case. So while there is a lot to dislike about the bill, the way it was lobbied for by the world's bully as a condition of Free Trade, and the way it was rushed through during an emergency session of parliament that was supposed to be about freeing up funds for earthquake relief, it isn't all bad news.
So, by challenging the assumed guilt you must abandon the lower penalty of a few months offline and substitute a huge financial penalty when it goes to court.
Not at all. You seem to be confusing two different things here. A few months offline is one of the penalties that will be available to the tribunal if the government minister in charge decides to activate that part of the bill at a future date (initially, fines will be the only penalty available). If the tribunal does decide to use suspension of internet access as a penalty at some point in future (assuming the government activates that part of the bill), they will be required to take your case to court. Separately, because the Copyright Tribunal has been added to the process in this version of the bill, there is an opportunity to defend against the three accusations before a penalty (whether it be a fine or loss of internet access) is imposed.
The difference here is that you don't need to be found guilty of murder, I can just accuse you of it. Three accusations and you're off to jail.
That was true of the bill that was originally tabled, and rejected. But in this hastily resurrected form, the accusations do have to be reviewed by a "Copyright Tribunal", allowing the accused to mount a defence against the presumption of guilt. And if the tribunal decides that terminating your internet access is a fitting punishment, they then have to put it before a court.
Imagine your future mother-in-law asked you over for a BBQ, and when you start roasting, she suddenly asks you about your past sex lives. Yes she has every reasons to ask (for the sake of her daughter's well being), but that doesn't make it any less rude.
Just politely reply with a story about that awesome threesome you had with her daughter and her best friend, the one that used to come over for sleepovers all the time, and the girl on girl show they gave you that night. She'll soon learn what questions not to ask.
Not really. The article seems to boil down to a few complaints.
Badly coded websites that block you from seeing the content because they do not recognise the browser you are using (not the fault of Flash).
Developers using UI gimmicks that do not translate well to the touchscreen interface (again, not the fault of Flash).
Flash controls not acting as part of the part of the page they are embedded in with respect to scrolling (the fault of Flash, but the same fault exists in Quicktime on the iPad).
Flash jumping out of where it should be in the page and drawing in the top corner of the screen (again, the fault of Flash, and again, I have seen this with Quicktime on the iPad).
Looking at that table, I can't help thinking that the/4 block reserved for "Future use" might come in handy about now. I know it will only last a few months, and there are probably some TCP/IP stacks around that will reject those reserved addresses, but if the future is ever going to come, it needs to come now.
Slashdot Mirror
Malaysia
How many prime number pounds can you divide one stone into? Or a pound into ounces? The biggest problem with Imperial measurements is that they aren't all anything except different and confusing. Your justification works only for units of length and the temperature difference between the boiling point and freezing point of water at normal atmospheric pressure at sea level, and the later involves the extra complication of an offset of 32.
The only Android related source code I see there is:
That is not the source code to Android - it is the source to the Linux kernel, which is GPL so they have to release it.
How dare you suggest putting a non-Apple-proprietary connector on a tablet. That would completely ruin the exclusive user experience!
The buses around here (developing world country in South East Asia) have Wifi.
At how much extra per month? Airport Wifi is free in most of the airports I've visited the past few years. International 3G roaming on the other hand requires access to the same level of funds that would cover RIAAs claims against Limewire.
Yes. Confusingly the story about iPhones having the same basic problem is linked to from the summary under "...disrupting Wi-Fi traffic for Android and non-Android devices alike."
As IPv4 addresses become a scarce commodity, expect more organizations to start controlling more tightly how they are used. The protocols are designed to handle this type of issue, but if IP addresses are scarce and devices using them beyond their lease are many, the server can end up looping around trying to give out addresses that should be free but aren't, rather than just rejecting new connections.
WebGL is an inefficient compatibility layer hindering Microsoft's precious native HTML5 performance. Just take a look at their demo where they get a whopping 1000 fish swimming around an empty fishbowl at once, only obtainable using native IE10 on native Windows 7. The Firefox guys were only able to get a paltry 50,000 swimming around their finely textured aquarium using WebGL.
Skype doesn't allow installing on the SD Card (at least the version I tried and promptly uninstalled a few months ago due to it being a resource hog and a battery drain), so even if your hypothetical permission problem for apps installed on SD exists, I don't think it is the problem here. Skype seems to not really be written as an Android app, but as a native app with a thin Android wrapper. I suspect that is the real problem - the install asks for a bunch of permissions that the app should not really need, since the app has not been designed to fit into the Android sandbox from the start.
Which cash register maker takes 30% of turnover, and keeps hold of the parent's wallet for 15 minutes after a legitimate purchase while allowing the kids to help themselves to everything shiny they see on the shelves?
More people need to complain to government bodies with oversight over the industry about cases like these, or start a class action suit against the companies that profit from these scams (ie the mobile phone companies as well as the scammers). The way mobile phone companies make it so easy to subscribe to premium SMS services over the web, or by replying to a deceptive text message, and then the way they shrug their shoulders and play blame the victim when you phone them to complain demonstrates that self regulation is not an option when the company in a position to put things right has an economic interest in allowing things to continue as is.
You can hardly blame W3C for the lack of support for existing standards by the mainstream desktop browsers.
You seem to be missing the fact that these companies includes Facebook and Twitter as well as Google. Or are you saying that the exceptions make up the majority here?
He did think up his approach in 1960, even if it took 47 years to reach version 1.0. And hypertext wasn't the only thing he came up with. Teledildonics is another invention of his that is yet to reach it's peak.
What is wrong with simultaneous Alphas of Firefox 5.0 and Firefox 6.0? Surely it's better than coming up with another non-standard term for a pre-release state that is neither a Greek letter, nor a plain English word, so who knows where the hell it fits into things?
Or if they are really convinced that their users are too thick to handle two Alpha's at once, they'd have been better off redefining the May17 release as a Gamma release (if an RC is too conventional for them) and calling this the Beta.
Any denial should be enough for the accuser to have to reveal their evidence. But I'm not on the tribunal, so really its up to them. My expectation is that it will work similarly to a speeding camera ticket. You can deny being in that location at that time, but you'd better hope that the photo evidence is fuzzy enough that there is doubt about the number plate, or that the guy who cloned your plate is driving a different model or at least color of car, or have some convincing evidence that the speed camera calibration is out. Similarly you'll have to cast some convincing doubt on the accuser's collection of IP addresses, or your ISP's records to have some change of getting off without solid evidence that it wasn't you.
My understanding is that it will start from a presumption of guilt (ie, the accuser doesn't really need to provide real evidence, and if the accused fails to defend they will automatically lose, with the tribunal only considering what the penalty should be based on the seriousness of the accusations). But once evidence is filed in defence, it will come down to the merits of that evidence vs the accuser's, just as in a proper court of justice, only it is still in front of the tribunal so the cost of defending should not be exhorbitant. So the law is still starting from a flawed point of view, but the changes that have been made in its final form at least give the chance of something resembling a fair process.
Note that compared to existing law, your first two accusations are guaranteed to be warnings only (providing you remain within the boundaries of what this bill covers). Also the limit of the fine that can be imposed by the tribunal is $15k, which is a couple of orders of magnitude lower than what is typically asked for in your average RIAA filesharing case. So while there is a lot to dislike about the bill, the way it was lobbied for by the world's bully as a condition of Free Trade, and the way it was rushed through during an emergency session of parliament that was supposed to be about freeing up funds for earthquake relief, it isn't all bad news.
Not at all. You seem to be confusing two different things here. A few months offline is one of the penalties that will be available to the tribunal if the government minister in charge decides to activate that part of the bill at a future date (initially, fines will be the only penalty available). If the tribunal does decide to use suspension of internet access as a penalty at some point in future (assuming the government activates that part of the bill), they will be required to take your case to court. Separately, because the Copyright Tribunal has been added to the process in this version of the bill, there is an opportunity to defend against the three accusations before a penalty (whether it be a fine or loss of internet access) is imposed.
That was true of the bill that was originally tabled, and rejected. But in this hastily resurrected form, the accusations do have to be reviewed by a "Copyright Tribunal", allowing the accused to mount a defence against the presumption of guilt. And if the tribunal decides that terminating your internet access is a fitting punishment, they then have to put it before a court.
Just politely reply with a story about that awesome threesome you had with her daughter and her best friend, the one that used to come over for sleepovers all the time, and the girl on girl show they gave you that night. She'll soon learn what questions not to ask.
Looking at that table, I can't help thinking that the /4 block reserved for "Future use" might come in handy about now. I know it will only last a few months, and there are probably some TCP/IP stacks around that will reject those reserved addresses, but if the future is ever going to come, it needs to come now.
I wondered about that, and almost put a question mark after the x86.
Windows CE 2.0 came out in November 1997 with support for DEC's StrongARM processor (now evolved into Marvell's Xscale range).
I don't think you quite understand the rules for numbered lists on Slashdot. Number 2 is way too early for the "Profit!" step, and where is the "..."?