Slashdot links to itself. Which means it links to a site that links to a site that links to a site ad ininitum. For each iteration he can sue Slashdot again!
The solution to this was worked out some time ago.
The loser should pay a value based on their own costs to the winner. This means that both sides have a vested interest in only spending as much on legal fees as neccesary.
Last time I looked for an application, I wanted something that would allow me to copy the full path of a filename from explorer to the clipboard. I googled for "copy filename to clipboard" or something. What would you do with a windows package manager?
Unlike you I value my time and wasting it on pointless activity doesn't appeal to me. To download an open source program now I need to google for a program,
I tend to google for what a program does. Not its name. Usually google takes me straight to a download page where I just click the windows version to download. Not quite as easy as apt-get but a few extra clicks doesn't really strike me as worth the effort to install yet another package for the few times I need a new application.
Don't like a company's privacy policy? Don't patronize them.
No!
Why should businesses have the right to store information about me indefinitely? How does it benefit me? EU? It only benefits shareholders in the companies by making them money at the expense of my privacy, while all responsibility is abdicated to an abstraction representing those people.
In Europe, we realise that a free market can solve some problems. Government regulation is needed to solve other problems.
Personally, I like the fact that the franchise that changes my vehicle's engine fluids is already pulling up my service record when they see my license plate roll into their queue lane.
Yes, but nothing in EU law prevents this. The data is directly relevent to their business. They don't keep data about absolutely everything I've ever done there.
Nope. I know a C programmer. He developed code tht was launched on an Arianne 5 a couple of months ago. As long as you're good, there's a C programming job. You'll probably need to know a little assembly as well but I don't know many C programmers without at least some idea of the code their copmplier produces.
I could do that sort of thing but felt it was worth my while learning C++.
Goerge Orwell was a smart guy and pretty left wing. He saw the problems way before anyone else. You're probably right. It was probably quite clear that Fascism wasn't the way forward by that time but a lot of people were sufficiently committed that it really required a war for them to see the error of their ways. It takes a lot to change some people's minds.
AACS was designed to allow a limitted number of copies (assuming DRM is supported in the OS). It should be possible to copy to a Vista PC and prevent making usable copies on other machines.
Coem on. They're a nasty right wing rag alright, but you still can't really hold an article against them if it was written at a time when Fascism was respectable, and the owners, editor, every single writer and pretty much every one of their readers were differenty people.
Considering Muslims are becoming a persecuted minority, and are the main target for the far right at the moment, it would probably be in their interests to pay attention to this aspect of history.
Not toally sure. There's some details from Northamptonshire police. Looks like you get an on the spot ticket and 28 days to pay. Yes, you can fight them in court. Like a lot of modern "justice", that's a gamble since you may end up with a criminal record.
The camera will be operated by an official person who has a face and can clearly be identified. We can watch him watching us.
But those £80 fines are a big problem. The evidence required to issue them is small, the reasons are vague and challenging them is a lot of hassle. We've had on the spot fines for callign a police horse gay, dropping two crisps, and calling a metal detector a "piece of shit".
But one thing that was interesting was one of my co-workers told me how Costco got away with it all the time. They were such a huge retail channel for Disney videos, Disney couldn't afford to threaten Costco, so they just had to take a "grin and bear it" posture in those cases, filing a protest but unable to make threats.
Strange. I always assumed that the sanction would be to delay delivery for repeat offenders. Would seem a fair response and Costco don't want to lose out on the sales either.
The source shouldn't be a problem in this case. 35mm film has incredibly high detail. It picks up dust and scratches but there are all sorts of techniques to deal with that perfectly.
Surely it should have been up to the rights holders how much they charge. Not government. If they want their music to be advertised, they should decide with the radio station how much the music is worth the the radio stations revenues, how much the advertising is worth to the label and sort out a price based on these facters. Who decided that these two numbers should be the same?
All the record industry is asking is that those who distribute their music be obliged to pay a royalty. Since this is the way the copyright system is supposed to work, this exception seems ludicrous.
The vast majority of sex offenders will not reoffend. Out of thos ewho will reoofend, the vast majority are not going to put anyone at risk by using MySpace. In fact, most sex offenders commit offence against people they already know. Many people who are on the list committed very minor crimes, or had sex with someone a couple of months younger than them when they were teens, or even are simply considered to be at risk of committing a sexual offence.
On the other hand, any sex offender who has never been caught or convicted will be able to use MySpace with impunity.
Okayyy... So they're going to send a load of these into the underground to watch suspected terrorist bombers and they'll know not to detonate their explosives because they'll be identified and arrested.
Something I've always wondered is that even if this is the case, how do the companies monitor what their employees do in their free time?
They don't. In my case, I simply feel that it's quite a reasonable request that I don't compete with them. I can ask for a waiver if there's something I feel I must work on and as long as I don't compete absolutely directly they're not going to have a problem. It's just based on trust. If you can't trust your employer or they can't trust you then someone is doing something wrong.
So, while they're broadcasting over someone else's private radio station, their freedom of speech is limitted to what XM think is appropriate rather than what they want to say.
"Free speech" refers to a prohibition on censorship by the government;
No it doesn't. Free speech refers to the ability to speak without anyone attempting to stop you. Free speech can be actively enhanced by private individuals and organisations and can also be restricted (although not so easily). Free speech is a principle. It was the principle that guided the creation of the first amendment. It is not a result of it.
XM is free to do as it wishes with the content it broadcasts, within the law.
No they aren't, except legally speaking (but that's a tautology). They are legally free to be total jerks. That doesn't mean we should let them. XM have decided that there are some things that their DJs are allowed to say amd some things that they are not allowed to say. If they break these rules, then they are censured. Does this suggest that they are "free" to "speak"?
European tax is ridiculously high. Something like two thirds tax. Even if the petrol station got the stuff for free, they'd have to charge at least 58p per litre to break even.
This is all guesswork on my part from bits and pieces I've picked up, but at 40 miles from the UK, the UK government has no jurisdiction. The ship sank hundreds of years ago, so has no actual owners (and if I understand it, a ship abandoned or sunk in international waters has no owners anyway). I think international treaties essentially have a "finders keepers" rule for wrecks, but national law may still require companies to go through some legal processes to prove that they were the first people there and they do actually have salvage rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and by doing this:
slashdot.org
Slashdot links to itself. Which means it links to a site that links to a site that links to a site ad ininitum. For each iteration he can sue Slashdot again!
The solution to this was worked out some time ago.
The loser should pay a value based on their own costs to the winner. This means that both sides have a vested interest in only spending as much on legal fees as neccesary.
Really?
Last time I looked for an application, I wanted something that would allow me to copy the full path of a filename from explorer to the clipboard. I googled for "copy filename to clipboard" or something. What would you do with a windows package manager?
Not quite sure what your point is about a url.
Unlike you I value my time and wasting it on pointless activity doesn't appeal to me. To download an open source program now I need to google for a program,
I tend to google for what a program does. Not its name. Usually google takes me straight to a download page where I just click the windows version to download. Not quite as easy as apt-get but a few extra clicks doesn't really strike me as worth the effort to install yet another package for the few times I need a new application.
Don't like a company's privacy policy? Don't patronize them.
No!
Why should businesses have the right to store information about me indefinitely? How does it benefit me? EU? It only benefits shareholders in the companies by making them money at the expense of my privacy, while all responsibility is abdicated to an abstraction representing those people.
In Europe, we realise that a free market can solve some problems. Government regulation is needed to solve other problems.
Personally, I like the fact that the franchise that changes my vehicle's engine fluids is already pulling up my service record when they see my license plate roll into their queue lane.
Yes, but nothing in EU law prevents this. The data is directly relevent to their business. They don't keep data about absolutely everything I've ever done there.
Nope. I know a C programmer. He developed code tht was launched on an Arianne 5 a couple of months ago. As long as you're good, there's a C programming job. You'll probably need to know a little assembly as well but I don't know many C programmers without at least some idea of the code their copmplier produces.
I could do that sort of thing but felt it was worth my while learning C++.
Goerge Orwell was a smart guy and pretty left wing. He saw the problems way before anyone else. You're probably right. It was probably quite clear that Fascism wasn't the way forward by that time but a lot of people were sufficiently committed that it really required a war for them to see the error of their ways. It takes a lot to change some people's minds.
AACS was designed to allow a limitted number of copies (assuming DRM is supported in the OS). It should be possible to copy to a Vista PC and prevent making usable copies on other machines.
Coem on. They're a nasty right wing rag alright, but you still can't really hold an article against them if it was written at a time when Fascism was respectable, and the owners, editor, every single writer and pretty much every one of their readers were differenty people.
Considering Muslims are becoming a persecuted minority, and are the main target for the far right at the moment, it would probably be in their interests to pay attention to this aspect of history.
Messed up the URL Here it is again
What does an "on the spot" fine mean?
Not toally sure. There's some details from Northamptonshire police. Looks like you get an on the spot ticket and 28 days to pay. Yes, you can fight them in court. Like a lot of modern "justice", that's a gamble since you may end up with a criminal record.
Yeah. Everythings in the right place and I love the different sized buttons. Makes it so much easier on the thumb.
The camera will be operated by an official person who has a face and can clearly be identified. We can watch him watching us.
But those £80 fines are a big problem. The evidence required to issue them is small, the reasons are vague and challenging them is a lot of hassle. We've had on the spot fines for callign a police horse gay, dropping two crisps, and calling a metal detector a "piece of shit".
But one thing that was interesting was one of my co-workers told me how Costco got away with it all the time. They were such a huge retail channel for Disney videos, Disney couldn't afford to threaten Costco, so they just had to take a "grin and bear it" posture in those cases, filing a protest but unable to make threats.
Strange. I always assumed that the sanction would be to delay delivery for repeat offenders. Would seem a fair response and Costco don't want to lose out on the sales either.
The source shouldn't be a problem in this case. 35mm film has incredibly high detail. It picks up dust and scratches but there are all sorts of techniques to deal with that perfectly.
Surely it should have been up to the rights holders how much they charge. Not government. If they want their music to be advertised, they should decide with the radio station how much the music is worth the the radio stations revenues, how much the advertising is worth to the label and sort out a price based on these facters. Who decided that these two numbers should be the same?
All the record industry is asking is that those who distribute their music be obliged to pay a royalty. Since this is the way the copyright system is supposed to work, this exception seems ludicrous.
The vast majority of sex offenders will not reoffend. Out of thos ewho will reoofend, the vast majority are not going to put anyone at risk by using MySpace. In fact, most sex offenders commit offence against people they already know. Many people who are on the list committed very minor crimes, or had sex with someone a couple of months younger than them when they were teens, or even are simply considered to be at risk of committing a sexual offence.
On the other hand, any sex offender who has never been caught or convicted will be able to use MySpace with impunity.
Okayyy... So they're going to send a load of these into the underground to watch suspected terrorist bombers and they'll know not to detonate their explosives because they'll be identified and arrested.
Okay.
I just don't like being watched every time I leave my house.
I'm afraid I can't justify that feeling nay further. It is simply something I find disturbingly creepy.
Something I've always wondered is that even if this is the case, how do the companies monitor what their employees do in their free time?
They don't. In my case, I simply feel that it's quite a reasonable request that I don't compete with them. I can ask for a waiver if there's something I feel I must work on and as long as I don't compete absolutely directly they're not going to have a problem. It's just based on trust. If you can't trust your employer or they can't trust you then someone is doing something wrong.
Exactly.
So, while they're broadcasting over someone else's private radio station, their freedom of speech is limitted to what XM think is appropriate rather than what they want to say.
Of course this dispute isn't a free-speech issue.
Yes it is. That's the whole point.
"Free speech" refers to a prohibition on censorship by the government;
No it doesn't. Free speech refers to the ability to speak without anyone attempting to stop you. Free speech can be actively enhanced by private individuals and organisations and can also be restricted (although not so easily). Free speech is a principle. It was the principle that guided the creation of the first amendment. It is not a result of it. XM is free to do as it wishes with the content it broadcasts, within the law.
No they aren't, except legally speaking (but that's a tautology). They are legally free to be total jerks. That doesn't mean we should let them. XM have decided that there are some things that their DJs are allowed to say amd some things that they are not allowed to say. If they break these rules, then they are censured. Does this suggest that they are "free" to "speak"?
European tax is ridiculously high. Something like two thirds tax. Even if the petrol station got the stuff for free, they'd have to charge at least 58p per litre to break even.
This is all guesswork on my part from bits and pieces I've picked up, but at 40 miles from the UK, the UK government has no jurisdiction. The ship sank hundreds of years ago, so has no actual owners (and if I understand it, a ship abandoned or sunk in international waters has no owners anyway). I think international treaties essentially have a "finders keepers" rule for wrecks, but national law may still require companies to go through some legal processes to prove that they were the first people there and they do actually have salvage rights.