I think you're shouting into the wind with this. The ship has sailed. Everyone knows what "Open source" means in this context. "Free Software" is a more obscure term that hasn't really caught on.
Stallman's argument "that the open source effort is a corporate reactionary counter to software freedom" is something most users don't care about. They're perfectly happy to use a proprietry solution if they have to. The benefit of Free software is the price, not the freedom.
I'm not communicating this to the public. Nor am I intending to make a financial gain for myself or another person. Nor do I know or have reason to believe - at the time of downloading - that doing so would cause you the loss of the making available right, or expose you to a risk or loss.
Essentially this is a set of amendments. Rather than this being "in the course of a business", it covers any act which will make a profit or knowingly affect the copyright owners rights or profits. But in the case of your post, any rights are essentially unchanged. The only difference is that the maximum penaltyfor infringement is 10 years rather than 2.
The first step is to criminalize enough normal, common behavior that everyone becomes a criminal. The second step is to selectively arrest dissidents and people with inconvenient ideas not for opposing the people in power, but for breaking the "legitimate" and "reasonable" laws.
Right. This is my point. They haven't done either. This particular law may allow a little too much power to the police, but to actually be penalised, you need to take several active steps to break the law. Steps that most people are aware are illegal. The police really can't use this to harass political opponents. All they need to do is not illegally stream copyrighted content.
I've read the dictionary definition. But if that's literally what people mean when they say this then they're being hysterical idiots. The police are not doing this, nor do they seem to be doing this.
I assume people saying this are not hysterical idiots and they have a more restrained interpretation of what a police state is. Am I wrong?
It's made from the stuff they make pop-tarts out of. It can handle the ridiculous temperatures that the filling gets to, so a mere 100 million degrees is nothing.
Downside is advertising often does not try to sell the solution but to promote the problem. E.g Spot creams advertise how awful spots are. Unless facebook has restrictions on the type of promotion, this could do more harm than good.
One procedural language is much like the next. Once you learn the syntax, the basic ideas and concepts are transferable. Most of the COBOL developers who built these systems learned most of what they know on the job.
They would have had an agreement with the distributor, most likely with hefty penalty clauses. I guess technically they could simply pay those penalties, and consider it a reduction in revenue, but revenue that low results in the studio going bankrupt. It's not really much of a choice.
Trump winning an election does not make him immune from criticism. In fact, you'll find quite the opposite. Criticising the President is actually a patriotic act from an American. You are expected to hold your leaders to account.
I'm not necessarily saying this is a bad thing. Job flexibility has its benefits, after all. But there is certainly a quid pro quo here. The employee's loyalty is a reflection of the company's loyalty.
My parents were in careers where you could reasonably be expected to work in the same company all your life. but things are different now. Not sure if the job market is more turbulent, or attitudes have changed. Perhaps this is a result of changes in corporate culture, or faster moving technology resulting in a lot of companies expanding, contracting, forming and collapsing. I get the impression that it was a similar situation for workers during the industrial revolution as well.
And companies are part of this change. If a department needs a new manager; they might consider hiring from the lower rank, but they're just as likely, if not more, to advertise from outside.
This is a pretty mad interpretation of "accessing a computer system". BK don't have "access". They have sent a message. They didn't receive any response, attempt to receive a response or have any means to receive a response.
And even if you can stretch the definition to cover that use, it seems like a crazy misapplication of the law - one designed to cover activity that actually does something harmful rather than getting a different device to do what BK have the capability of doing with your TV anyway (i.e. read out a description of the product).
" the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"
.
Collins has
"the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession"
Not all of them specify the depriving the original owner of it, but it does seem that the loss by the victim, rather than the gain by the perpetrator is what makes this theft. If I take yourproperty and immediately destroy it, I've still stolen it even though I don't have it.
No. It was based on copyright infringed goods. Different crime.
Piracy is not theft. Nor is murder, jaywalking, trespass, or driving while using a mobile phone. This does not automatically make it right, nor does that make it wrong. It is its own crime that needs to be judged on its own merits.
United are causing a PR nightmare here. There is not enough they can pay twitter to make them take United's side. Just censoring twitter would be pointless given how the mainstream media and every other website is crucifying United.
If we look at the deleted tweet it's clearly using an Indiana Jones clip. Possibly this one. Tagging @IndianaJones (An official studio account) may simply have caused an overzealous account admin to see it and make a copyright complaint.
I like this solution. The seat has a value to the customer and a value to the airline. Allow the customer to sell the seat back at an agreed price. The times that it costs them $20000 will be rare and this can probably be mathematically modelled.
Yes. I didn't consider that these were mostly diesel-electric anyway for various reasons so they're not changing the design of anything too substantially. They're just adding some batteries to smooth out the demand for the power.
And 43 ferries on longer routes would benefit from conversion to hybrids that use diesel engines to charge their batteries.
Surprised there are any gains to be had here. Hybrids are great for stop/start vehicles like commuter cars and especially buses, but we get losses through various inefficiencies as well. Are they really stopped/peak accelerating for long enough to get serious gains? Well, I guess so... Still seems surprising.
As for the regular ferries, if we're using batteries anyway, it seems like the fastest way to transfer the power would be to transfer the batteries.
Or go the whole hog. Forget the batteries. Just plug them in with an extension cable!
In practice, it would probably be a case of "You're not getting in", or "Okay, but we'll, we'll take that phone from you" if they're feeling nice. Either way, it's expensive and inconvenient.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're shouting into the wind with this. The ship has sailed. Everyone knows what "Open source" means in this context. "Free Software" is a more obscure term that hasn't really caught on.
Stallman's argument "that the open source effort is a corporate reactionary counter to software freedom" is something most users don't care about. They're perfectly happy to use a proprietry solution if they have to. The benefit of Free software is the price, not the freedom.
I'm not communicating this to the public. Nor am I intending to make a financial gain for myself or another person. Nor do I know or have reason to believe - at the time of downloading - that doing so would cause you the loss of the making available right, or expose you to a risk or loss.
Essentially this is a set of amendments. Rather than this being "in the course of a business", it covers any act which will make a profit or knowingly affect the copyright owners rights or profits. But in the case of your post, any rights are essentially unchanged. The only difference is that the maximum penaltyfor infringement is 10 years rather than 2.
Right. This is my point. They haven't done either. This particular law may allow a little too much power to the police, but to actually be penalised, you need to take several active steps to break the law. Steps that most people are aware are illegal. The police really can't use this to harass political opponents. All they need to do is not illegally stream copyrighted content.
I've read the dictionary definition. But if that's literally what people mean when they say this then they're being hysterical idiots. The police are not doing this, nor do they seem to be doing this.
I assume people saying this are not hysterical idiots and they have a more restrained interpretation of what a police state is. Am I wrong?
I hear this sort of thing a lot.
What exactly is a "Police State"?
It's made from the stuff they make pop-tarts out of. It can handle the ridiculous temperatures that the filling gets to, so a mere 100 million degrees is nothing.
On one hand, yes, it can help.
Downside is advertising often does not try to sell the solution but to promote the problem. E.g Spot creams advertise how awful spots are. Unless facebook has restrictions on the type of promotion, this could do more harm than good.
Train developers.
One procedural language is much like the next. Once you learn the syntax, the basic ideas and concepts are transferable. Most of the COBOL developers who built these systems learned most of what they know on the job.
Oh, good lord. do you realise you are the epitome of what you are mocking here?
Me too. But then I don't work for the company so I don't give a shit what happens t them.
They would have had an agreement with the distributor, most likely with hefty penalty clauses. I guess technically they could simply pay those penalties, and consider it a reduction in revenue, but revenue that low results in the studio going bankrupt. It's not really much of a choice.
Trump winning an election does not make him immune from criticism. In fact, you'll find quite the opposite. Criticising the President is actually a patriotic act from an American. You are expected to hold your leaders to account.
I'm not necessarily saying this is a bad thing. Job flexibility has its benefits, after all. But there is certainly a quid pro quo here. The employee's loyalty is a reflection of the company's loyalty.
I say this as a Gen-Xer.
My parents were in careers where you could reasonably be expected to work in the same company all your life. but things are different now. Not sure if the job market is more turbulent, or attitudes have changed. Perhaps this is a result of changes in corporate culture, or faster moving technology resulting in a lot of companies expanding, contracting, forming and collapsing. I get the impression that it was a similar situation for workers during the industrial revolution as well.
And companies are part of this change. If a department needs a new manager; they might consider hiring from the lower rank, but they're just as likely, if not more, to advertise from outside.
I can see it as a mildly annoying practical joke. About as enraging as a rick-roll. She really should get over it.
This is a pretty mad interpretation of "accessing a computer system". BK don't have "access". They have sent a message. They didn't receive any response, attempt to receive a response or have any means to receive a response.
And even if you can stretch the definition to cover that use, it seems like a crazy misapplication of the law - one designed to cover activity that actually does something harmful rather than getting a different device to do what BK have the capability of doing with your TV anyway (i.e. read out a description of the product).
. Collins has
Not all of them specify the depriving the original owner of it, but it does seem that the loss by the victim, rather than the gain by the perpetrator is what makes this theft. If I take yourproperty and immediately destroy it, I've still stolen it even though I don't have it.
I can go along with that. Although I do think we need to be careful still not to stretch the metaphor too far.
No. It was based on copyright infringed goods. Different crime.
Piracy is not theft. Nor is murder, jaywalking, trespass, or driving while using a mobile phone. This does not automatically make it right, nor does that make it wrong. It is its own crime that needs to be judged on its own merits.
United are causing a PR nightmare here. There is not enough they can pay twitter to make them take United's side. Just censoring twitter would be pointless given how the mainstream media and every other website is crucifying United.
If we look at the deleted tweet it's clearly using an Indiana Jones clip. Possibly this one. Tagging @IndianaJones (An official studio account) may simply have caused an overzealous account admin to see it and make a copyright complaint.
I like this solution. The seat has a value to the customer and a value to the airline. Allow the customer to sell the seat back at an agreed price. The times that it costs them $20000 will be rare and this can probably be mathematically modelled.
Yes. I didn't consider that these were mostly diesel-electric anyway for various reasons so they're not changing the design of anything too substantially. They're just adding some batteries to smooth out the demand for the power.
Surprised there are any gains to be had here. Hybrids are great for stop/start vehicles like commuter cars and especially buses, but we get losses through various inefficiencies as well. Are they really stopped/peak accelerating for long enough to get serious gains? Well, I guess so... Still seems surprising.
As for the regular ferries, if we're using batteries anyway, it seems like the fastest way to transfer the power would be to transfer the batteries.
Or go the whole hog. Forget the batteries. Just plug them in with an extension cable!
In practice, it would probably be a case of "You're not getting in", or "Okay, but we'll, we'll take that phone from you" if they're feeling nice. Either way, it's expensive and inconvenient.
X items where X is a member of the set of natural numbers less than or equal to 10.