I agree. I'm sure the law says "per work" infringed. not per person infringing. The rationale for the damages I thought was that you can't know how many users infringed.
Which means it makes sense to focus on things that are happening in London exclusively, but this only affects those people who actually live in London, has affected more people than that overt the past 3 years and will affect even more in upcoming months.
My dad is addicted to the FTSE share prices. All the information is on one page and updated frequently. He found it useful to have it on at all times while at home.
Cricket matches were updated in the same way. It works well for brief information that you want to consult regularly.
I don't think this is just hiring a programmer though. If it is, then offer a daily rate, and insist they sign an NDA.
This is about a speculative partnership deal. The people are going to him to suggest a partnership in something he may well be working on already. Signing an NDA is probably a bad idea here since he might come up with the same idea independently.
NASA do do a lot of work on the effects of acceleration (and deceleration) on a human body. I believe that a lot of the research into seatbelts was an offshoot of the NASA's experimentation in this field.
This does seem a *little* far from NASA's usual remit but it's not a completely illogical area of research.
Hard disks have very little that relies on a base 2 system though, and the sizes have been given using the SI base 10 prefixes since the 1970's.
Stupid and inconsistent would be that 1kB takes more than 8 seconds to transfer at 1kb/s. Or if you consider 1kb to be 1024 bits, then it's bizarre that you been a signal of 1.024kHz to transmit data at 1kb/s.
Having different prefixes for base 2 and base 120 systems seems to be the only sensible options.
There's no lower case 't' SI prefix though. T is "Tera" which means 10^12.
There are some binary prefixes that indicate a power of 2. 1TiB = 1024GiB and so on. Unless you're averse to putting a little 'i' in your prefix, this seems like a reasonable compromise.
If it's just learning to program, language doesn't really matter. Understanding how programming languages work and what they do is the key skill at first. C, Python, Perl, or even Intercal or Basic would be fine.
C does have the advantage of working at a lower level. Teaching you that memory exists, for example. Understanding this low level stuff is useful.
My only real concern is that it does teach a procedural rather than OO mindset. I'm not sure if this is a problem or not.
Presumably this is a workaround for the fact that.com is redundant. Everyone wants a.com URL for their main site. They might also want ccTLDs for regional sites but the.com is what everyone will try first.
Which makes it useless. If everyone has it. Why not get rid of it entirely.
The TVTropes page linked to was an informal summary of Roland Barhe's essay = Death of the Author. Not an argument on where Springfield may be. I chose TVTropes because it's more general, and provides examples.
You're perfectly entitled to your opinion that Springfield is in Oregon. Unless this is specified in the text, then its an opinion. Others may agree with you, or not but this doesn't mean anyone specifically is right or wrong.
Sure, but according to the principle of the Death of the Author (warning - TVTropes link), unless it's made clear in the text, the author's opinion has no weight when it comes to an interpretation.
Based entirely on the work it seems quite clear that Springfield is nowhere, or anywhere depending on how you want to look at it, this allowing the viewer to consider it to be somewhere relevant to himself.
Are you suggesting that she was actually performing poorly at her job though?
The suggestion is that the actual motivation is that she wrote to her congressman. This means that the congressman received the letter, and rather than ignore it, or act on it, was so incensed that he found out who her supervisor was to get here fired. This is clearly something that may have backfired on him if it got out, but someone who writes a letter needs to be stopped.
So he decides to spend the time taken to find this person, (okay, he gets an intern to do it because there's clearly nothing more useful they could be doing), and they find the TSA employees bosses boss. to get her fired.
Seriously? The congressman cares that much about TSA criticism? Why?
How does that happen? The congressman would not only have to violate the trust of his constuituent, but actually care enough to let the TSA know. If this violation of trust got out, it could seriously harm his career.
Could this actually be unrelated? I'd be more readily convinced that the sick leave was related. This would be a problem in itself perhaps but not a security problem.
My Computer Architecture lecturer at University was David May - lead architect for the Transputer. Our architecture notes consisted of a treatise on transputer design.
Now multi-processor is becoming standard, it's interesting to see the the same problems being rediscovered, and often the same solutions reinvented. Their next problem will be contention between two cores that happen to be running processes that require a lot of communication. Inmos had a simple solution to this one as well.
Rather a shame that Inmos came up with the technology a quarter of a century too early. I've known a lot of engineers say wonderful things about them. The reason they weren't a huge success was because nobody had found a need for them yet. Extra silicon could be used to make the current generation faster much more easily than now.
Reading the law as widely as possible would mean I'm breaking federal law by setting up a second gmail account, or not using my real name on facebook. This clearly wasn't the intent of the law. It was a reaction to hackers breaking into systems that they had absolutely no rights to at all. At the time, public access services weren't that common. Those that were typically had a TOS agreement that was fairly narrow in scope.
I'm not sure how much the courts are allowed to take into account intent. It's certainly something they can consider.
If it includes some patents on some of the fundamental Javascript and cookies technology, that could be pretty powerful. I imagine most web related patents rely on these.
Which is exactly why they're the ones we want to encourage. If they didn't profit from it they wouldn't fund them in the first place.
Corporations are not People, only Legal Fictions that predate the Constitution yet are NOT mentioned in it.
I don't see why this matters either. They're pretty useful legal fictions. It means that multiple people can pool their resources to produce one legal entity greatly simplifying contracts. I'd hate it if every contract was with an actual person. it would mean that if the owner of the power company wanted to retire, every single customer would have to sign a new contract with the new owner if the assets were transferred.
Regardless, only a Person who is a Human should be able to hold Copyright.
Why!?
The point of copyright is to encourage creation of works. In the case of many works, particularly software, or movies, the body that is ultimately responsible for creating the work is a corporation. If we adopt your proposal, who should hold the copyright, and how will this encourage the creation of such works?
That means though, that people are paying $X for a specific channel, and a bunch of channels they don't want. Logically, most will be happy to pay $X just for that specific channel. The cable company will charge the same amount for the channel as they did for the package, but lose the few customers who also wanted the extra channels.
But the question is stupid. It's identifying the wrong problem.
This is something I encounter all the time. A customer has a problem and ask for a solution. I can accept and provide the solution they ask for, or I can discuss what the problem is and suggest a better solution to their problem. In my experience, customers seem to be quite happy when I give them what they need rather than what they thought they want.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I'm sure the law says "per work" infringed. not per person infringing. The rationale for the damages I thought was that you can't know how many users infringed.
Okay.... but why isn't it news when 70-75% of us lose Ceefax service but it is when 20% do?
Which means it makes sense to focus on things that are happening in London exclusively, but this only affects those people who actually live in London, has affected more people than that overt the past 3 years and will affect even more in upcoming months.
My dad is addicted to the FTSE share prices. All the information is on one page and updated frequently. He found it useful to have it on at all times while at home.
Cricket matches were updated in the same way. It works well for brief information that you want to consult regularly.
British media has a very London centric bias even though only about 10% of the population lives there
I don't think this is just hiring a programmer though. If it is, then offer a daily rate, and insist they sign an NDA.
This is about a speculative partnership deal. The people are going to him to suggest a partnership in something he may well be working on already. Signing an NDA is probably a bad idea here since he might come up with the same idea independently.
Ambiguous headline. A hyphen would have helped, but so would rearranging the headline.
Read as "Tor-using narcotics store shut down by Feds".
Since it was made with humorous intent, I believe one may well call it "a joke".
Really the primary intent was irony.
:)
NASA do do a lot of work on the effects of acceleration (and deceleration) on a human body. I believe that a lot of the research into seatbelts was an offshoot of the NASA's experimentation in this field.
This does seem a *little* far from NASA's usual remit but it's not a completely illogical area of research.
Hard disks have very little that relies on a base 2 system though, and the sizes have been given using the SI base 10 prefixes since the 1970's.
Stupid and inconsistent would be that 1kB takes more than 8 seconds to transfer at 1kb/s. Or if you consider 1kb to be 1024 bits, then it's bizarre that you been a signal of 1.024kHz to transmit data at 1kb/s.
Having different prefixes for base 2 and base 120 systems seems to be the only sensible options.
There's no lower case 't' SI prefix though. T is "Tera" which means 10^12.
There are some binary prefixes that indicate a power of 2. 1TiB = 1024GiB and so on. Unless you're averse to putting a little 'i' in your prefix, this seems like a reasonable compromise.
If it's just learning to program, language doesn't really matter. Understanding how programming languages work and what they do is the key skill at first. C, Python, Perl, or even Intercal or Basic would be fine.
C does have the advantage of working at a lower level. Teaching you that memory exists, for example. Understanding this low level stuff is useful.
My only real concern is that it does teach a procedural rather than OO mindset. I'm not sure if this is a problem or not.
Presumably this is a workaround for the fact that .com is redundant. Everyone wants a .com URL for their main site. They might also want ccTLDs for regional sites but the .com is what everyone will try first.
Which makes it useless. If everyone has it. Why not get rid of it entirely.
The TVTropes page linked to was an informal summary of Roland Barhe's essay = Death of the Author. Not an argument on where Springfield may be. I chose TVTropes because it's more general, and provides examples.
You're perfectly entitled to your opinion that Springfield is in Oregon. Unless this is specified in the text, then its an opinion. Others may agree with you, or not but this doesn't mean anyone specifically is right or wrong.
Sure, but according to the principle of the Death of the Author (warning - TVTropes link), unless it's made clear in the text, the author's opinion has no weight when it comes to an interpretation.
Based entirely on the work it seems quite clear that Springfield is nowhere, or anywhere depending on how you want to look at it, this allowing the viewer to consider it to be somewhere relevant to himself.
Are you suggesting that she was actually performing poorly at her job though?
The suggestion is that the actual motivation is that she wrote to her congressman. This means that the congressman received the letter, and rather than ignore it, or act on it, was so incensed that he found out who her supervisor was to get here fired. This is clearly something that may have backfired on him if it got out, but someone who writes a letter needs to be stopped.
So he decides to spend the time taken to find this person, (okay, he gets an intern to do it because there's clearly nothing more useful they could be doing), and they find the TSA employees bosses boss. to get her fired.
Seriously? The congressman cares that much about TSA criticism? Why?
How does that happen? The congressman would not only have to violate the trust of his constuituent, but actually care enough to let the TSA know. If this violation of trust got out, it could seriously harm his career.
Could this actually be unrelated? I'd be more readily convinced that the sick leave was related. This would be a problem in itself perhaps but not a security problem.
My Computer Architecture lecturer at University was David May - lead architect for the Transputer. Our architecture notes consisted of a treatise on transputer design.
Now multi-processor is becoming standard, it's interesting to see the the same problems being rediscovered, and often the same solutions reinvented. Their next problem will be contention between two cores that happen to be running processes that require a lot of communication. Inmos had a simple solution to this one as well.
Rather a shame that Inmos came up with the technology a quarter of a century too early. I've known a lot of engineers say wonderful things about them. The reason they weren't a huge success was because nobody had found a need for them yet. Extra silicon could be used to make the current generation faster much more easily than now.
It is an important question.
Reading the law as widely as possible would mean I'm breaking federal law by setting up a second gmail account, or not using my real name on facebook. This clearly wasn't the intent of the law. It was a reaction to hackers breaking into systems that they had absolutely no rights to at all. At the time, public access services weren't that common. Those that were typically had a TOS agreement that was fairly narrow in scope.
I'm not sure how much the courts are allowed to take into account intent. It's certainly something they can consider.
If it includes some patents on some of the fundamental Javascript and cookies technology, that could be pretty powerful. I imagine most web related patents rely on these.
Corporations profit off of it.
Which is exactly why they're the ones we want to encourage. If they didn't profit from it they wouldn't fund them in the first place.
Corporations are not People, only Legal Fictions that predate the Constitution yet are NOT mentioned in it.
I don't see why this matters either. They're pretty useful legal fictions. It means that multiple people can pool their resources to produce one legal entity greatly simplifying contracts. I'd hate it if every contract was with an actual person. it would mean that if the owner of the power company wanted to retire, every single customer would have to sign a new contract with the new owner if the assets were transferred.
Regardless, only a Person who is a Human should be able to hold Copyright.
Why!?
The point of copyright is to encourage creation of works. In the case of many works, particularly software, or movies, the body that is ultimately responsible for creating the work is a corporation. If we adopt your proposal, who should hold the copyright, and how will this encourage the creation of such works?
That means though, that people are paying $X for a specific channel, and a bunch of channels they don't want. Logically, most will be happy to pay $X just for that specific channel. The cable company will charge the same amount for the channel as they did for the package, but lose the few customers who also wanted the extra channels.
People aren't changing their consumption habits though. The providers are being forced to change by government intervention, not market pressure.
But the question is stupid. It's identifying the wrong problem.
This is something I encounter all the time. A customer has a problem and ask for a solution. I can accept and provide the solution they ask for, or I can discuss what the problem is and suggest a better solution to their problem. In my experience, customers seem to be quite happy when I give them what they need rather than what they thought they want.