There is one known planet that has produced life. This would be our own, and isn't really a good candidate for inclusion in our sample set because it was the one we base our hypothesis thta life exists on other planets on.
So, we can speculate that there are a certain number of stars with life supporting planets. We have some idea of how many stars have planets, and based on knowledge of extra-solar planets, we can make a stab at how many suitable planets there are, at least in terms of being in the habitable zone. So that's a start. That's also an end.
We have no idea of the tolerances for developing life. Could Venus produce a lifeform that thrives at 400 degrees C and breathes sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide? Possibly. Possibly not. We have no idea how many planets have a composition sufficiently similar to Earth because we don't even know what "sufficiently similar to Earth" means. Even if we did, we don't have particularly good knowledge of what other planets are like.
Our civilisation has never become exinct, so we don't even have a sample set of 1 for the typical lifetime of a civilisation. We have no idea what the likelihod of our planet developing life was. It was probably somewhere between 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% and 99.99999999999999999999999999999999%. We have no idea how many will be able to or want to communicate. Too many of the unknowns are simply wild guesses.
All we can deduce is that there is at least 1 developed life form in the galaxy, and probably substantially fewer than 400 billion.
Most websites will have copyrighted material on them. Most of the copyrighted material will not be registered. If they have this policy, and they require proof that most people won't have, it's a bit pointless arguing with them, and a lot easier to find a new host with more sensible policies.
If your case is strong enough, you will win. There are a lot of arguments against Apple, especially the anti-trust one. The right to produce a competing product is fairly important in a free market.
If I did that I'd be arrested and charged with theft. If it could be proved that I genuinely believed that the car was mine to do with as I liked, then I'd have a valid defence.
Should the defence be accepted the owner would be able to sue for the loss of the use of his car. He would have to prove damages. If his argument for damages was that people would pay $200 to drive it, then it would only be fair if it was reasonable that I would have paid that much had I not realised it was mine. So what's your point?
You can't base a society around "if you can't afford to buy something, you can have it anyway". Not a capitalist society anyway. Other systems are available, but most people find them not to their liking.
Nope. People are only applying this rule to something that is an unlimited resource. As it happens I'm not arguing this at all, so this is something of a non-sequitur.
And Stop. Comparing. Copyright. Infringement. With. Theft.
Punitive damages are meant to punish the offender, not just compensate the victim for their loss
These are statutory damages. Since they were reduced to $200, she was deemed not aware that she was infringing. So why is she being punished? Well, she's not. Statutory damages are different from punitive damages.
Fine, but sue for actual damages. $0.99 per song. Willful infringement so triple damages. that works out to $2.97 per song.
How can the RIAA claim to lose $200 per song from this person, since they would also claim that anyone who downloaded the song from her cost them $200, and anyone who she downloaded the song from cost them $200.
The person is basically assuming the right to distribute the material. In this case, the proper thing to look at is what the media company would charge someone if they wanted the purchase the rights to distribute the song, which is obviously going to much higher than the cost of purchasing a single download of the song.
But it's kind of ridiculous to believe that a 16 year old would ever buy a distribution licence and then give the songs away for free. So that means that they have lost $0 through this.
because you DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE LEECHED FROM HER, AND IN TURN, FROM THE ORIGINAL LEECHERS.
Averages to 1 copy of each infringed file per person. If the person who got the files from her also shared then sue them. They're the infringer in that case. Not her.
Game publishers are extremely risk averse. Sony is a big company that can afford to upset nobody. If someone gets offended by this line, it could backfire heavily. They may be in a position where apologising will offend some and not apologising will offend others.
They're probably getting worried over nothing but I'm not the one betting my job on this.
Yet all of the Muslims I've ever met are charming, peaceful friendly people. Big on family values, very law abiding, and socially responsible.
Religion is being used as an excuse! Hell, I can name a lot of Christian countries that used to burn "witches", and I don't think modern society would look too kindly on Lot offering his daughters to pacify a group of rapists. It doesn't mean that religion is bad. It means that the social structure of the country is archaic. The solution is to modernise the countries and the societies rather than jettison the religion.
In most countries, extradition doesn't apply for libel anyway. Generally speaking, the defendant has a defence if he can prove the statement is either true, or an opinion. Some territories simply require the defendant to prove that he believed it to be true. Once the potentially libellous nature of the statement is proved, it is up to the plaintiff to prove damages. A posting, on Slashdot, suggesting Microsoft have not too ethical business practices is not going to do substantial harm to the company.
Create an encrypted file. A lolcat or something. Encrypt it. Encrypt it again. Encrypt it again. Encrypt it again. Encrypt it again. And so on... See how long it takes for the police to get bored. You would need some decent legal representation to make sure to keep a loophole open so they can't demand all encryption keys.
Well, the next version of Windows will be the version after version 6. Version 7 seems like a good name for it. Starting NT at version 3 seems a little odd but it makes sense considering the parallel product line was also on version 3.
Is the major version number greater than or equal to all previous versions?
Is the minor version number greater than all previous version with the same major version number?
AS long as the answer to both of those is yes, and it isn't going to overflow on any plausible platform, give it whatever number you like. It's an arbitrary number.
Slashdot Mirror
There is one known planet that has produced life. This would be our own, and isn't really a good candidate for inclusion in our sample set because it was the one we base our hypothesis thta life exists on other planets on.
So, we can speculate that there are a certain number of stars with life supporting planets. We have some idea of how many stars have planets, and based on knowledge of extra-solar planets, we can make a stab at how many suitable planets there are, at least in terms of being in the habitable zone. So that's a start. That's also an end.
We have no idea of the tolerances for developing life. Could Venus produce a lifeform that thrives at 400 degrees C and breathes sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide? Possibly. Possibly not. We have no idea how many planets have a composition sufficiently similar to Earth because we don't even know what "sufficiently similar to Earth" means. Even if we did, we don't have particularly good knowledge of what other planets are like.
Our civilisation has never become exinct, so we don't even have a sample set of 1 for the typical lifetime of a civilisation. We have no idea what the likelihod of our planet developing life was. It was probably somewhere between 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% and 99.99999999999999999999999999999999%. We have no idea how many will be able to or want to communicate. Too many of the unknowns are simply wild guesses.
All we can deduce is that there is at least 1 developed life form in the galaxy, and probably substantially fewer than 400 billion.
Tapedrives are usually SCSI and ZIP drives are SCSI, IDE or USB so with aUSB SCSI interface you should be able to handle them.
Most websites will have copyrighted material on them. Most of the copyrighted material will not be registered. If they have this policy, and they require proof that most people won't have, it's a bit pointless arguing with them, and a lot easier to find a new host with more sensible policies.
I've bought a copy. I have the right to do what I want with it as long as copyright permits me. This includes all my fair use rights.
Is installing a piece of software on a piece of hardware not a right I should implicitly have?
Do remember that journalists tend to oversimplify. It's probably that the legislation will apply to SIM cards. Maybe only to SIM cards.
Pystar has a war chest to deal with this exact issue. If they weren't expecting Apple to sue they're idiots and wouldn't have lasted this long.
If your case is strong enough, you will win. There are a lot of arguments against Apple, especially the anti-trust one. The right to produce a competing product is fairly important in a free market.
And they will know your name and address, or at least your address.
They're talking about pre-pay phones.
As a result, terrorists are going to run up some hefty roaming charges as they buy foreign pre-pay phones, or just stolen/cloned ones.
If I did that I'd be arrested and charged with theft. If it could be proved that I genuinely believed that the car was mine to do with as I liked, then I'd have a valid defence.
Should the defence be accepted the owner would be able to sue for the loss of the use of his car. He would have to prove damages. If his argument for damages was that people would pay $200 to drive it, then it would only be fair if it was reasonable that I would have paid that much had I not realised it was mine. So what's your point?
You can't base a society around "if you can't afford to buy something, you can have it anyway". Not a capitalist society anyway. Other systems are available, but most people find them not to their liking.
Nope. People are only applying this rule to something that is an unlimited resource. As it happens I'm not arguing this at all, so this is something of a non-sequitur.
And Stop. Comparing. Copyright. Infringement. With. Theft.
Punitive damages are meant to punish the offender, not just compensate the victim for their loss
These are statutory damages. Since they were reduced to $200, she was deemed not aware that she was infringing. So why is she being punished? Well, she's not. Statutory damages are different from punitive damages.
Fine, but sue for actual damages. $0.99 per song. Willful infringement so triple damages. that works out to $2.97 per song.
How can the RIAA claim to lose $200 per song from this person, since they would also claim that anyone who downloaded the song from her cost them $200, and anyone who she downloaded the song from cost them $200.
The person is basically assuming the right to distribute the material. In this case, the proper thing to look at is what the media company would charge someone if they wanted the purchase the rights to distribute the song, which is obviously going to much higher than the cost of purchasing a single download of the song.
But it's kind of ridiculous to believe that a 16 year old would ever buy a distribution licence and then give the songs away for free. So that means that they have lost $0 through this.
because you DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE LEECHED FROM HER, AND IN TURN, FROM THE ORIGINAL LEECHERS.
Averages to 1 copy of each infringed file per person. If the person who got the files from her also shared then sue them. They're the infringer in that case. Not her.
Game publishers are extremely risk averse. Sony is a big company that can afford to upset nobody. If someone gets offended by this line, it could backfire heavily. They may be in a position where apologising will offend some and not apologising will offend others.
They're probably getting worried over nothing but I'm not the one betting my job on this.
And Thankyou.
Honestly, I think geeks arguing about religion is every bit as bad as Creationists arguing against evolution.
"Many Noodly Caresses to you, my followers".
Yet all of the Muslims I've ever met are charming, peaceful friendly people. Big on family values, very law abiding, and socially responsible.
Religion is being used as an excuse! Hell, I can name a lot of Christian countries that used to burn "witches", and I don't think modern society would look too kindly on Lot offering his daughters to pacify a group of rapists. It doesn't mean that religion is bad. It means that the social structure of the country is archaic. The solution is to modernise the countries and the societies rather than jettison the religion.
Most people will be buying these cars on credit. If they can't that they can't get one, so that could affect their sales.
They key doesn't need to be stored locally.
Buck Rogers: pending
They did that in the 70's. The classic Buster Crabbe cinema serial dates back to the 30's, and the character dates to the late 20's.
Hollywood has been raping childhood memories for a lot longer than you might think.
Not sure what country you're posting from.
In most countries, extradition doesn't apply for libel anyway. Generally speaking, the defendant has a defence if he can prove the statement is either true, or an opinion. Some territories simply require the defendant to prove that he believed it to be true. Once the potentially libellous nature of the statement is proved, it is up to the plaintiff to prove damages. A posting, on Slashdot, suggesting Microsoft have not too ethical business practices is not going to do substantial harm to the company.
Create an encrypted file. A lolcat or something. Encrypt it. Encrypt it again. Encrypt it again. Encrypt it again. Encrypt it again. And so on... See how long it takes for the police to get bored. You would need some decent legal representation to make sure to keep a loophole open so they can't demand all encryption keys.
Well, the next version of Windows will be the version after version 6. Version 7 seems like a good name for it. Starting NT at version 3 seems a little odd but it makes sense considering the parallel product line was also on version 3.
Is the major version number greater than or equal to all previous versions?
Is the minor version number greater than all previous version with the same major version number?
AS long as the answer to both of those is yes, and it isn't going to overflow on any plausible platform, give it whatever number you like. It's an arbitrary number.