I wonder how the people who promote this allegedly non-religious act would feel if schools started teaching Erich Von Däniken's work as fact. It's as valid as most intelligent design theories, and even provides a rational hypothesis about who "god" might be.
I'm sure schools teaching that God is actually an alien with advanced technology would go down well with the religious right.
Most of Europe is either secular, a national church, or Catholic. The Vatican has made it quite clear that evolution is not incompatible with Catholicism, and the national churches tend to be quite liberal. As such, there's no conflict between evolution and the major religious organisations in Europe.
Re:Back in the day...
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Quite true. I bet if you could find people willing to pay the prices they were paying (adjusted for inflation) on a flight, you'd be able to offer an unparalleled service, where everyone travelled first class, champagne was free, tickets would be transferable, and the airline would treat every customer as a prince.
Prices would be 3-4 times the price they are now so such luxuries would be easily affordable by an airline.
Most of them have it. You choose a.com if you're on the internet. Slashdot only had a.org for years
The ones that don't chose it because they wanted to make it clear they had something to do with networks or the internet, or they're a Canadian company.
And who cares? They still have their.net or.ca domain. They've not lost anything.
I think the naming system should have been abandoned a long time ago. ".com" is just a synonym for "on the internet" for all practical purposes. Anyone with a *.com domain should have been given a *. tld. Whoever owns.com.com,.net.com,.edu.com etc - Well who cares? It's not like they've failed to make their investment back from them by now.
GO to www.google for web searches, or www.slashdot for techy discussion. Why not.
Probably not. The summary is misleading. The decision was simply that the wireframe models don't qualify for copyright protection as a separate entity. It's similar to how I can make a photocopy of a picture. I don't gain any rights to it under copyright. The original artist still retains his copyright though and that will cover the copy I make.
So while the company that made these wireframes have no rights to them, Toyota probably do because they own the copyright on the original.
The Queen is just a figurehead. While the Queen is the ruler of the land and theoretically has a lot of power, she's only allowed to keep this power on the condition that she doesn't use it.
So, yes. The knighthoods are handed out by the monarch, but that's just a legal fiction. They're actually decided upon by the government of the day.
No doubt this is what he's being threatened with in the initial rounds of poker style plea bargain negotiations.
If he told took a principled stand, they would probably only prosecute for the charges they thought they could prove. This would not add up to 38 years. Even if they did prosecute him for all of them, and he was found guilty of all of them, it's still unlikely that he would be dealt the full sentence.
Popular media will always be readable after a fashion. Even laserdisc can be played back as long as you don't mind getting the player off eBay. You can certainly get 8mm film read and converted to a more convenient format and DVD is a much more popular format than that was. It's also possible that future generations will remain backwards compatible. Just as DVD drives read CDs and Blu Ray and HD DVD drive read DVDs and CDs, it's quite likely that a next generation format will read blu ray, DVD and CD.
The "behind closed doors deal" is that the BPI tell Virgin that you're sharing files, and virgin tels you that the BPI have told them this, then gives some tips on what to do in case someone is abusing your internet connection. It's pretty inoccuous.
I'm betting this was either at least 10 years ago (possibly 15 or more) or the guy had been in the industry for some time. I've been in the industry for a while and the spaghetti hackers seem to either be old, or come from mainland Europe these days.
It's not like there's any question at all that this material comes from Wikipedia, or that they're trying to hide it this fact.
Seriously though, while what they're doing is pretty worthless and generally poor manners, I'm not going to get too riled up about it. Hopefully it will just cease to exist when the owners realise that nobody wants to visit.
There are two borders between Germany and Singapore. If you stand on one border, a member of the German Embassy staff will tell you to get out of their doorway and if you stand on the other, a member of the Singapore Embassy staff will demand that you move out of the way.
The one I set up for my parents didn't. Brown box and a quick setup guide. Not sure about the box or literature for mine but the config doesn't give any warnings. The proof that the owner didn't know it was open would be to ask him whether he knew his network was open. It would be up to you to find reasonable doubt that he was telling the truth. Typically this would include suggesting some motivation for him to lie.
And once again we have a computer geek's response to the law.
With a computer, when I give it instructions, I have to be very explicit about what I tell it. If I tell it to rm -f./* and it turns out I'm running as root and in/bin/ it will delete everything there and pretty severely break my system. Computers do what you say. Not what you mean.
We also know that the law is inflexible. And it is. But not that inflexible. It is not interpreted by a machine. It is interpreted by people. People who try to work out the intent of the law. A weasely "well the router gave me permission" isn't going to wash if it's pretty obvious that the owner of the wireless network just didn't know how to set the thing up. Nitpicking the meaning of computer is also a pointless waste of time. Yes, a PC or a Mac is a computer. So is a PC. You can probably even stretch the definition to a game console. There are limits! The fact that my car's engine also has a microprocessor in it does not make that a computer. There may be some devices that sit on the boundary, but a router is not one of them.
Please, just stop nitpicking over things that make sense to everyone else.
Have you accessed a network? Have you been granted explicit permission by the owner of the network? Would the owner of the network, be pleased that you had used his network?
Well, it seems to me that there are likely to be a lot of people who don't know how to secure their wireless router. I'm also aware that those who want people to connect to their networks will typically put something along the lines of "free" or "open" in their network ID to make it clear that that's what they want.
Do you really think it more likely that the person wants you to use their wifi or that they simply don't understand technology? Do you really believe that the software has been granted explicit authority by the network owner to decide who should and shouldn't access the network, rather than just left in its default state?
I'm not even sure what the point of this justification is. If it's to satisfy yourself, then it sounds like you're weaseling ut of responsibility. It most likely wouldn't stand up in a court of law, where you have another person (called the prosecution) making the case that it would be pretty obvious to anyone that the owner of the wireless network didn't intentionally leave the network open.
The response rate to this sort of advertising is extremely low. He'll be lucky to get a single response, thus making it not worth the time to compose an email.
Most people react badly to unsolicited emailed advertisements. It is likely that some of these people are already customers or potential customers. This will dissuade them from choosing your company in the future.
If any customers are in the EU, you may have a data protection liability. Even if you don't, at least some people will respond requesting to be removed from the mailing list, which is something that will have to be dealt with.
It's very likely to be against the terms and conditions of your ISP.
It is possible that you will be blacklisted by the recipients ISPs (unlikely if he does this once)
There may be some legal ramifications for taking advantage of an obvious mistake by the other company. Even just a baseless legal threat would take time and money to deal with.
Often, "they try to show how clever they are by writing very cryptic code," she tells the Business Technology Blog.
Yeah... the advice to add comments explaining why and how is good, but how about you stop telling us what we're thinking and what our motivations are. If I do do something "clever", I'll sure as hell make it clear how it works and why I did it. And the reason for it is because it's the best way to do things. I don't have to prove anything.
Yes, or at least something equivalent. The problem is that this sort of thing doesn't work as well without dedicated hardware. A SIMD shader unit can operate on several pixels at a time whereas each CPU core can only operate on one colour channel of a pixel at a time.
Don't dismiss eye candy. It can affect playability. Any trick you can use to help convince the brain that it's really there makes the game more immersive. Making objects more distinctive or recognisable makes it easier to tell a story (and bad graphics will distract from the story). If you make something really pretty, or really impressive generally you will get an emotional response.
Perhaps it shouldn't be seen as a good excuse, but if there was a law that makes no sense and there was no possible reason that the perpetrator had heard of it, why shouldn't it be an offence? And what if the law is unclear? We're supposed to guess how a court will interpret it!
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how the people who promote this allegedly non-religious act would feel if schools started teaching Erich Von Däniken's work as fact. It's as valid as most intelligent design theories, and even provides a rational hypothesis about who "god" might be.
I'm sure schools teaching that God is actually an alien with advanced technology would go down well with the religious right.
Most of Europe is either secular, a national church, or Catholic. The Vatican has made it quite clear that evolution is not incompatible with Catholicism, and the national churches tend to be quite liberal. As such, there's no conflict between evolution and the major religious organisations in Europe.
Quite true. I bet if you could find people willing to pay the prices they were paying (adjusted for inflation) on a flight, you'd be able to offer an unparalleled service, where everyone travelled first class, champagne was free, tickets would be transferable, and the airline would treat every customer as a prince.
Prices would be 3-4 times the price they are now so such luxuries would be easily affordable by an airline.
Most of them have it. You choose a .com if you're on the internet. Slashdot only had a .org for years
.net or .ca domain. They've not lost anything.
The ones that don't chose it because they wanted to make it clear they had something to do with networks or the internet, or they're a Canadian company.
And who cares? They still have their
I'd have thought that anyone with $300K to spare probably doesn't need a job selling rugs.
I think the naming system should have been abandoned a long time ago. ".com" is just a synonym for "on the internet" for all practical purposes. Anyone with a *.com domain should have been given a *. tld. Whoever owns .com.com, .net.com, .edu.com etc - Well who cares? It's not like they've failed to make their investment back from them by now.
GO to www.google for web searches, or www.slashdot for techy discussion. Why not.
Probably not. The summary is misleading. The decision was simply that the wireframe models don't qualify for copyright protection as a separate entity. It's similar to how I can make a photocopy of a picture. I don't gain any rights to it under copyright. The original artist still retains his copyright though and that will cover the copy I make.
So while the company that made these wireframes have no rights to them, Toyota probably do because they own the copyright on the original.
The Queen is just a figurehead. While the Queen is the ruler of the land and theoretically has a lot of power, she's only allowed to keep this power on the condition that she doesn't use it.
So, yes. The knighthoods are handed out by the monarch, but that's just a legal fiction. They're actually decided upon by the government of the day.
Yes and no.
No doubt this is what he's being threatened with in the initial rounds of poker style plea bargain negotiations.
If he told took a principled stand, they would probably only prosecute for the charges they thought they could prove. This would not add up to 38 years. Even if they did prosecute him for all of them, and he was found guilty of all of them, it's still unlikely that he would be dealt the full sentence.
Your only worry is degradation.
Popular media will always be readable after a fashion. Even laserdisc can be played back as long as you don't mind getting the player off eBay. You can certainly get 8mm film read and converted to a more convenient format and DVD is a much more popular format than that was. It's also possible that future generations will remain backwards compatible. Just as DVD drives read CDs and Blu Ray and HD DVD drive read DVDs and CDs, it's quite likely that a next generation format will read blu ray, DVD and CD.
The "behind closed doors deal" is that the BPI tell Virgin that you're sharing files, and virgin tels you that the BPI have told them this, then gives some tips on what to do in case someone is abusing your internet connection. It's pretty inoccuous.
I'm betting this was either at least 10 years ago (possibly 15 or more) or the guy had been in the industry for some time. I've been in the industry for a while and the spaghetti hackers seem to either be old, or come from mainland Europe these days.
It's not like there's any question at all that this material comes from Wikipedia, or that they're trying to hide it this fact.
Seriously though, while what they're doing is pretty worthless and generally poor manners, I'm not going to get too riled up about it. Hopefully it will just cease to exist when the owners realise that nobody wants to visit.
There are two borders between Germany and Singapore. If you stand on one border, a member of the German Embassy staff will tell you to get out of their doorway and if you stand on the other, a member of the Singapore Embassy staff will demand that you move out of the way.
The one I set up for my parents didn't. Brown box and a quick setup guide. Not sure about the box or literature for mine but the config doesn't give any warnings. The proof that the owner didn't know it was open would be to ask him whether he knew his network was open. It would be up to you to find reasonable doubt that he was telling the truth. Typically this would include suggesting some motivation for him to lie.
it's leaving it unlocked and putting up a sign that says "Please come in!".
Do you consider a "welcome" mat to be an invitaton?
And once again we have a computer geek's response to the law.
./* and it turns out I'm running as root and in /bin/ it will delete everything there and pretty severely break my system. Computers do what you say. Not what you mean.
With a computer, when I give it instructions, I have to be very explicit about what I tell it. If I tell it to rm -f
We also know that the law is inflexible. And it is. But not that inflexible. It is not interpreted by a machine. It is interpreted by people. People who try to work out the intent of the law. A weasely "well the router gave me permission" isn't going to wash if it's pretty obvious that the owner of the wireless network just didn't know how to set the thing up. Nitpicking the meaning of computer is also a pointless waste of time. Yes, a PC or a Mac is a computer. So is a PC. You can probably even stretch the definition to a game console. There are limits! The fact that my car's engine also has a microprocessor in it does not make that a computer. There may be some devices that sit on the boundary, but a router is not one of them.
Please, just stop nitpicking over things that make sense to everyone else.
Have you accessed a network? Have you been granted explicit permission by the owner of the network? Would the owner of the network, be pleased that you had used his network?
Well, it seems to me that there are likely to be a lot of people who don't know how to secure their wireless router. I'm also aware that those who want people to connect to their networks will typically put something along the lines of "free" or "open" in their network ID to make it clear that that's what they want.
Do you really think it more likely that the person wants you to use their wifi or that they simply don't understand technology? Do you really believe that the software has been granted explicit authority by the network owner to decide who should and shouldn't access the network, rather than just left in its default state?
I'm not even sure what the point of this justification is. If it's to satisfy yourself, then it sounds like you're weaseling ut of responsibility. It most likely wouldn't stand up in a court of law, where you have another person (called the prosecution) making the case that it would be pretty obvious to anyone that the owner of the wireless network didn't intentionally leave the network open.
Which is fair enough. What's the justification for overtaking them after they go past?
The response rate to this sort of advertising is extremely low. He'll be lucky to get a single response, thus making it not worth the time to compose an email.
Most people react badly to unsolicited emailed advertisements. It is likely that some of these people are already customers or potential customers. This will dissuade them from choosing your company in the future.
If any customers are in the EU, you may have a data protection liability. Even if you don't, at least some people will respond requesting to be removed from the mailing list, which is something that will have to be dealt with.
It's very likely to be against the terms and conditions of your ISP.
It is possible that you will be blacklisted by the recipients ISPs (unlikely if he does this once)
There may be some legal ramifications for taking advantage of an obvious mistake by the other company. Even just a baseless legal threat would take time and money to deal with.
Often, "they try to show how clever they are by writing very cryptic code," she tells the Business Technology Blog.
Yeah... the advice to add comments explaining why and how is good, but how about you stop telling us what we're thinking and what our motivations are. If I do do something "clever", I'll sure as hell make it clear how it works and why I did it. And the reason for it is because it's the best way to do things. I don't have to prove anything.
Yes, or at least something equivalent. The problem is that this sort of thing doesn't work as well without dedicated hardware. A SIMD shader unit can operate on several pixels at a time whereas each CPU core can only operate on one colour channel of a pixel at a time.
Don't dismiss eye candy. It can affect playability. Any trick you can use to help convince the brain that it's really there makes the game more immersive. Making objects more distinctive or recognisable makes it easier to tell a story (and bad graphics will distract from the story). If you make something really pretty, or really impressive generally you will get an emotional response.
Giant domino rally
Freecycle
eBay.
Why not?
Perhaps it shouldn't be seen as a good excuse, but if there was a law that makes no sense and there was no possible reason that the perpetrator had heard of it, why shouldn't it be an offence? And what if the law is unclear? We're supposed to guess how a court will interpret it!