The developers already do most of the work. They develop games to fit the rating. They don't produce a game and then wonder what the rating's going to be.
And they had to fill in the questionnaire anyway. The ESRB doesn't play the game through to the end. They rely on honesty from the developers. The developers will be honest because getting a too low a rating will typically deter serious adult gamers from certain types of games.
If you make an exact duplicate, even if you do so my hand, you can infringe copyright.An identical icon or two might be covered by fair use, of course.
Personally I'm intrigued about where the trademark argument might go.. If it's actually likely that someone might confuse it with an iPhone then Apple has a case.
Righthaven bought the rights where both seller and buyer were fully aware that they had already been infringed - this is why Righthaven bought them and the publisher sold them after all. Righthaven have no interest in exploiting the articles commercially. Yet still they're claiming the infringement is causing them a loss.
I can see how PDF is useful but I don't give a damn about XML formats.
Where's the grammar checker in Writer? Autoabstract is pretty limited and doesn't do a very good job in my experience, compared with autosummarise. Can you configure it quickly to give that nice yellow on blue interface?
Collaborative editing? Maybe this is a specialised feature but it's still something where OO lagged behind.
It's another feature that I don't use but like I said, I'm perfectly happy with OO. The reason I use it is not because it's better but because it's free and more than adequate for my needs. I'm not going to claim it's better.
both of which not only out perform Word but do a better job as a word processor.
How so? I mean I use Open Office and it's perfectly adequate for my needs, but it never struck me as being quite as good as Word. For one thing, OpenOffice 3 screwed up word counts, and tends to lag behind on features.
I'm amazed that the British Government hasn't arrested more people, if for no other reason than there were serious national security concerns when they first found out about it.
That's not the British way. This is a lot more subtle The implication is if you break the law, then the authorities will catch up with you. They won't do it all guns blazing. You won't be arrested with a group who can look out for each other. You'll be on your own.
triggering an alert against somebody who attempts to use social engineering to avoid search or hustling TSA agents into being less thorough and at forcing TSA agent that's being hustled to not give in to the feeling of "yeah, I really need this crap; screw it I'll search someone else"
The problem is there's no evidence to suggest that any terrorist considers doing this. Perhaps a psychologist could be employed to establish likely behaviour, but my guess is that since belligerence is likely to cause the agent to notice you even without an official policy, a terrorist would try to blend in with the majority.
I've noticed this logical disconnect many times before. I was talking to someone about file sharing. She was of the opinion that the artist was entitled to money for copies so file sharing should be prevented. Which is fair enough.
A couple of weeks later the same person asked me to make copies of a couple of DVDs she'd borrowed. I tried pointing out the logical disconnect here but she didn't get it and seemed to think I had a moral issues with making a copy.
He wants to level the playing field a little and in doing so increase the amount of money available for government services, as is his right per the US constitution.
Who cares though? The Russians sent a man into orbit before the Americans ever got a man the 100km required to get into space.
And aren't the FAI guidelines about altitude records rather than orbit. So all the Americans did "technically" was set the first altitude record to cover a space flight.
Faith is all about absolute trust that something will happen. At least in some context. It can also be a synonym for religion. It's one of those many times when the English language is ambiguous and confusing.
So, if I drop a ball it will fall. I have absolute faith on gravity. I'd be foolish not to. Gravity has worked countless times in the past. It will work again. This is science, but it's also faith. The two terms aren't contradictory. However, the fact that I have faith doesn't make science "A faith". In fact it would even be possible - if you were religious but cynical - to have a faith without actually having faith. Isn't English fun?
If you type in "Charlie Smith is" an autocomplete comes up with [starring in a Broadway play], then would you assume that Charlie Smith is starring in a Broadway play? I certainly would.
By the same token then, would you assume that Charlie Smith may have done something disreputable is it came up with [a con man]?
With libel standards of proof depend a little bit in different countries, but generally repeating something that's untrue and you had no reason to suspect is true is still libellous because it still does damage to a reputation and it's seen as the responsibility the reporter to at least make some effort to verify the allegations. Blaming an algorithm isn't a particularly good excuse in this case.
Ultimately though, nobody is forcing Google to do business in Italy in the first place. They're hardly doing it simply as a favour to Italians. They're doing it in order to make money.
Italy is happy for them to do this as long as they do it within Italian law. It may well be that Italian law is making this impossible but honestly, I don't think it is. It's not even making it all that difficult.
Perhaps. But then Bing would implement their own version of autocomplete that simply filters out potentially libellous suggestions somehow and offer this as a feature not provided by Google in Italy.
Google throwing its toys out of the pram would probably do more harm than good.
Actually that Baird's innovation. The receiver design is really fairly simple. essentially a spiral rotating in front of a perpendicular line to create a vertical scan. What was needed was a photosensor fast enough to do this for the transmitter.
It was quite clear what sort of driving conditions Top Gear was putting the car through. Of course it's not normal driving conditions but a lot of people who want one of these will want to use them on a track.
The car was shown running out of charge. It may not have happened. Are Tesla arguing that this wouldn't have happened had they been running for a few more miles?
Both cars broke down at some point. We didn't see more than that.
If you're planning to drive from London to Scotland, you're not going to go in a Tesla. You might want to try it around a race track. It was made quite clear that that was the situation it was being tested under. They do the same test with every other high performance car. The only thing they don;t usually mention is refuel times because normally that doesn't matter. This time it does so they did,
Of course I pirate! All my friends know I have hundreds of gigs of pirated software, music and videos. Most of them do as well.
I buy a lot of stuff too. I'm never buying anything from this company.
I could potentially sue them for libel, and perhaps theft of service. I did not authorise them to send a message to every single person on my contact list, or to use up my limited number of texts doing so.
While they could potentially sue me, it's possible that I simply didn't know it was pirated. However, since I only downloaded there's no statutory damages. The most they can get from me is the cost of the app. I'll make an offer of settlement out of court for that one.
Apple don't have a monopoly on desktop operating systems though. They aren't using their market position to bully other companies to only use their software.
And Apple considers the ability to run another OS as a feature of the mac.
There were a few misleading claims. There were a few damaging claims.
I suspect Top Gear's defence will be that the misleading claims weren't damaging and the damaging claims weren't misleading.
It didn't run out of power on the track. Misleading. But damaging? It would have done.
The breakdowns were staged. However, these were breakdowns that actually happened. Once again not damaging.
Will only manage 55 miles. Potentially damaging, But since it's actually true, not misleading.
Honestly, a to of this seems pretty weasely from Tesla. They claim it will manage 211 miles in a verified test. That's fair enough. You don't buy a Tesla as a commuter car though. You'll probably want to go to a track day or two. There may well have always been a car available but there was only one available for a lot of the time and they didn't have one available with good charge at all times.
To be fair to MS, they did have an OS for a tablet, and a set of hardware specs a decade ago, and have been toying with the idea on and off since then. It's not like they can be accused of failing to predict this one.
Slashdot Mirror
The developers already do most of the work. They develop games to fit the rating. They don't produce a game and then wonder what the rating's going to be.
And they had to fill in the questionnaire anyway. The ESRB doesn't play the game through to the end. They rely on honesty from the developers. The developers will be honest because getting a too low a rating will typically deter serious adult gamers from certain types of games.
The mouse predates the Xerox Windowing system by a long time.
Apple's GUI wasn't a mere copy of the Xerox system. Apple did a lot of development which was subsequently copied by everyone else.
If you make an exact duplicate, even if you do so my hand, you can infringe copyright.An identical icon or two might be covered by fair use, of course.
Personally I'm intrigued about where the trademark argument might go.. If it's actually likely that someone might confuse it with an iPhone then Apple has a case.
But it's certainly a bizarre position to take.
Righthaven bought the rights where both seller and buyer were fully aware that they had already been infringed - this is why Righthaven bought them and the publisher sold them after all. Righthaven have no interest in exploiting the articles commercially. Yet still they're claiming the infringement is causing them a loss.
I see no real reason to make the agreement public other than to embarrass Righthaven.
The default in a public trial is that everything is made public. It should only be kept private if there's a compelling reason.
I can see how PDF is useful but I don't give a damn about XML formats.
Where's the grammar checker in Writer? Autoabstract is pretty limited and doesn't do a very good job in my experience, compared with autosummarise. Can you configure it quickly to give that nice yellow on blue interface?
Collaborative editing? Maybe this is a specialised feature but it's still something where OO lagged behind.
It's another feature that I don't use but like I said, I'm perfectly happy with OO. The reason I use it is not because it's better but because it's free and more than adequate for my needs. I'm not going to claim it's better.
both of which not only out perform Word but do a better job as a word processor.
How so? I mean I use Open Office and it's perfectly adequate for my needs, but it never struck me as being quite as good as Word. For one thing, OpenOffice 3 screwed up word counts, and tends to lag behind on features.
I'm amazed that the British Government hasn't arrested more people, if for no other reason than there were serious national security concerns when they first found out about it.
That's not the British way. This is a lot more subtle The implication is if you break the law, then the authorities will catch up with you. They won't do it all guns blazing. You won't be arrested with a group who can look out for each other. You'll be on your own.
triggering an alert against somebody who attempts to use social engineering to avoid search or hustling TSA agents into being less thorough and at forcing TSA agent that's being hustled to not give in to the feeling of "yeah, I really need this crap; screw it I'll search someone else"
The problem is there's no evidence to suggest that any terrorist considers doing this. Perhaps a psychologist could be employed to establish likely behaviour, but my guess is that since belligerence is likely to cause the agent to notice you even without an official policy, a terrorist would try to blend in with the majority.
I've noticed this logical disconnect many times before. I was talking to someone about file sharing. She was of the opinion that the artist was entitled to money for copies so file sharing should be prevented. Which is fair enough.
A couple of weeks later the same person asked me to make copies of a couple of DVDs she'd borrowed. I tried pointing out the logical disconnect here but she didn't get it and seemed to think I had a moral issues with making a copy.
He wants to level the playing field a little and in doing so increase the amount of money available for government services, as is his right per the US constitution.
Damn liberals!
Basically the Kindle's primary purpose is as a promotional tool for eBooks. Amazon wants people to buy eBooks and they want them to buy from Amazon.
So the device is an advertisment.
Who cares though? The Russians sent a man into orbit before the Americans ever got a man the 100km required to get into space.
And aren't the FAI guidelines about altitude records rather than orbit. So all the Americans did "technically" was set the first altitude record to cover a space flight.
Faith is all about absolute trust that something will happen. At least in some context. It can also be a synonym for religion. It's one of those many times when the English language is ambiguous and confusing.
So, if I drop a ball it will fall. I have absolute faith on gravity. I'd be foolish not to. Gravity has worked countless times in the past. It will work again. This is science, but it's also faith. The two terms aren't contradictory. However, the fact that I have faith doesn't make science "A faith". In fact it would even be possible - if you were religious but cynical - to have a faith without actually having faith. Isn't English fun?
It doesn't quite work like that.
If you type in "Charlie Smith is" an autocomplete comes up with [starring in a Broadway play], then would you assume that Charlie Smith is starring in a Broadway play? I certainly would.
By the same token then, would you assume that Charlie Smith may have done something disreputable is it came up with [a con man]?
With libel standards of proof depend a little bit in different countries, but generally repeating something that's untrue and you had no reason to suspect is true is still libellous because it still does damage to a reputation and it's seen as the responsibility the reporter to at least make some effort to verify the allegations. Blaming an algorithm isn't a particularly good excuse in this case.
Ultimately though, nobody is forcing Google to do business in Italy in the first place. They're hardly doing it simply as a favour to Italians. They're doing it in order to make money.
Italy is happy for them to do this as long as they do it within Italian law. It may well be that Italian law is making this impossible but honestly, I don't think it is. It's not even making it all that difficult.
Perhaps. But then Bing would implement their own version of autocomplete that simply filters out potentially libellous suggestions somehow and offer this as a feature not provided by Google in Italy.
Google throwing its toys out of the pram would probably do more harm than good.
Actually that Baird's innovation. The receiver design is really fairly simple. essentially a spiral rotating in front of a perpendicular line to create a vertical scan. What was needed was a photosensor fast enough to do this for the transmitter.
It was quite clear what sort of driving conditions Top Gear was putting the car through. Of course it's not normal driving conditions but a lot of people who want one of these will want to use them on a track.
The car was shown running out of charge. It may not have happened. Are Tesla arguing that this wouldn't have happened had they been running for a few more miles?
Both cars broke down at some point. We didn't see more than that.
If you're planning to drive from London to Scotland, you're not going to go in a Tesla. You might want to try it around a race track. It was made quite clear that that was the situation it was being tested under. They do the same test with every other high performance car. The only thing they don;t usually mention is refuel times because normally that doesn't matter. This time it does so they did,
Of course I pirate! All my friends know I have hundreds of gigs of pirated software, music and videos. Most of them do as well.
I buy a lot of stuff too. I'm never buying anything from this company.
I could potentially sue them for libel, and perhaps theft of service. I did not authorise them to send a message to every single person on my contact list, or to use up my limited number of texts doing so.
While they could potentially sue me, it's possible that I simply didn't know it was pirated. However, since I only downloaded there's no statutory damages. The most they can get from me is the cost of the app. I'll make an offer of settlement out of court for that one.
So has everyone else. Rusty included, I think.
Apple don't have a monopoly on desktop operating systems though. They aren't using their market position to bully other companies to only use their software.
And Apple considers the ability to run another OS as a feature of the mac.
Well, if that's the case, I'm sure that the logs will show that the car did have 70% charge left after 50 miles around the track.
There were a few misleading claims. There were a few damaging claims.
I suspect Top Gear's defence will be that the misleading claims weren't damaging and the damaging claims weren't misleading.
It didn't run out of power on the track. Misleading. But damaging? It would have done.
The breakdowns were staged. However, these were breakdowns that actually happened. Once again not damaging.
Will only manage 55 miles. Potentially damaging, But since it's actually true, not misleading.
Honestly, a to of this seems pretty weasely from Tesla. They claim it will manage 211 miles in a verified test. That's fair enough. You don't buy a Tesla as a commuter car though. You'll probably want to go to a track day or two. There may well have always been a car available but there was only one available for a lot of the time and they didn't have one available with good charge at all times.
To be fair to MS, they did have an OS for a tablet, and a set of hardware specs a decade ago, and have been toying with the idea on and off since then. It's not like they can be accused of failing to predict this one.