Are there any benefits that a random British person could point out, that are the result of UK being in the EU?
Cheaper cars (EU rules ban charging extra for right hand drive), and I've been able to live and work in Germany, North Holland and Belgium. Also, electrical goods come with a plug already fitted, and I can head across the channel for cheap drinks.
Large scale valve/vacuum tube electronics were actually a lot more reliable that radios using the same technology. Heating and cooling does the damage. Keep the things running and they're more than good enough for the GPO's telephone exchanges in the 1930's. This was one of the arguments that had to be won for Colossus, but it was actually a lot more reliable than the bombes.
Aren't contracts a state metter though? I think that's essentially what the laws are covering. Seems to be more about the demanding of royalties (which is presumably covered by contract law) than actual patent litigation itself.
Google isn't *publishing* information, it's just indexing information (web page) already available elsewhere (on 3rd-party webservers).
From a legal perspecitve, the difference is largely irrelevant. And in answer to most tortured analogies in reponse; yes - potentially; it depends on knowledge and intent.
But not Texas, Arizona or California. Deciding not to implement something there because it isn't suitable for a place on the otherside of the contry wouldn't make much sense.
But it would be possible. Lift is proportional to wing area (amongst other things). The Space shuttle is heavy with a small wing. A U2 is light with a large wing.
So what is the assumption for wing area and lift coefficient?
If someone stole an iPad, they'd by charged with theft and Apple would see nothing. They may well sue afterwards but the thief would be perfectly entitled to make any offer and Apple may well accept it rather than waste their resources on something relatively trivial.
What we really need is for the DoJ to get involved and actually press charges for deliberate wrongdoing, and for the court to decide the punishment.
People hate the special editions, but ultimately, in the first one, there are just three issues.
The redundant Jabba scene
The stupid comedy bit with the Ronto in Mos Eisley
and of course, the "Han shoots first" scene.
There are dozens of little improvements. Better special effects generally, better compositing, losing the blur under the landspeeder. Similarly with the others, the troublesome changes are minor. I'd love to see an almost special edition.
It's a long time since I used a minicab. I'm not sure how the billing works (or that much abut Uber). Are they fundamentally different? It seems that they just offer a price per mile agreed upfront. Does it connect with unlicenced freelancers or actual minicab drivers?
If kids have to learn "Baa, Baa, Rainbow Sheep" in school now
They don't. The whole story was completely misrepresented by a hysterical media. The lesson was simply to teach adjectives and illustrate that you can have a black sheep, a happy sheep a pink sheep or even a rainbow sheep.
It does depend on who you are. Let's look ay a simple situation. Channel X and Channel Y.
Person A is willing to pay $5 for X and $10 for Y. Person B is willing to pay $10 for X and $5 for Y. Person C is willing to pay $10 for each.
Charge $10 per channel. A buys Y, B buys X C buys X and Y. Total income for provider: $40.
Charge $5 per channel. All buy A and B. Total income for provider: $30.
Charge $15 for the package, All buy A and B. Total income for provider: $45.
So charging a package is better for the provider (and it virtually always is). If they are forced to provide a la carte, they would choose to charge $10 (in this situation). But everybody loses something of value. Person A loses channel X, B loses channel Y, and C loses the $5 extra he's paying. Of course, this is just one situation.
But if you're willing to spend what you currently spend to get the channels you watch, you'll be willing to pay more for the channels you do want and nothing for those you don't.
You've already demonstrated that the subset of channels you watch is worth the monthly subscription to them. Why would they charge less? It costs them pretty much the same to provide a channel to 1 person as 100 people.
I don't think there's anything wrong with limiting the choices available to the car and simply not going off the road at all for any reason (even to save the driver). We make compromises for practicality over safety all the time. The extremely rare event that going off the road will save a life simply isn't worth considering.
A driver is obligated to try to avoid harming other people, but best effort is seen as good enough. 0% failure is an impossible goal, but if we aim for considerably higher success in accident avoidance than an unimpaired experienced driver, we should be more than satisfied.
You present copyright as a moral system. I see it as a practical system.
Your argument is that 2, 3 and 4 are unfair. They are, but I can avoid it quite simply, by not making my book availalbe (or by not even writing it). If I have protection then I can quite happily make my book available. It also makes it afforable to create.
Just an aside. I agree that a 14 year renewal would be fine. Most of the material published in 2000 is out of print and very difficult to obtain, so any argument about losses by the media cartels should be taken with a pinch of salt.
The reason the main parties are so similar is because that's what people want. Both sides are targeting the mainstream so they meet at a sort of equilibrium point that closely represents the strongest tactical position.
It's not in itself a problem. Ideally this would mean that both parties have chosen a centrist position largely representative of the majority. What is a problem is that this doesn't happen because this isn't the strongest position. Money is way too much of a factor, so that means the best position is somewhere between what the people want, and what generates the most revenue.
I do have a certain fondness for a library of physical media, but there are specific issues with streaming.
Streaming services are not standardised. Sure, everything works with netflix, but what if I don't want Netflix or the other handful of services that are supported? Handing a few companies an oligarchy feels like a bad idea.
Movies that are available now may not be available next week.
I need an internet connection. Okay, my situation here is somewhat specialised, but I spend a lot of time not at home. Hotel internet connections are not perfect. I can rip a bunch of DVDs to my hard disk, or a portable media player, and plug that into a television. This even works in other countries.
DVDs have their own issues. I'm under no illusion about that, but streaming isn't an idea replacement for me.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "popular". It's probably has much better penetration than Laserdisc ever did, and that format lasted a couple of decades. Inclusion in the PS3 meant a lot of early sales which no doubt helped.
But just about anyone who might ever want to watch a movie has a DVD player. Blu-ray is only owned by people who watch quite a lot of movies. And in my case I waited until they were a lot cheaper than I did for a DVD player (although lack of multi-region players was also a factor for me).
Yes it is. But OpenGL ES is not OpenGL. There are features in OpenGL ES that aren't in OpenGL, and features that are available in OpenGL that aren't in OpenGL ES. Similarly the OpenGL ES shader language doesn't support everything that OpenGL ES does.
Slashdot Mirror
Cheaper cars (EU rules ban charging extra for right hand drive), and I've been able to live and work in Germany, North Holland and Belgium. Also, electrical goods come with a plug already fitted, and I can head across the channel for cheap drinks.
Large scale valve/vacuum tube electronics were actually a lot more reliable that radios using the same technology. Heating and cooling does the damage. Keep the things running and they're more than good enough for the GPO's telephone exchanges in the 1930's. This was one of the arguments that had to be won for Colossus, but it was actually a lot more reliable than the bombes.
Aren't contracts a state metter though? I think that's essentially what the laws are covering. Seems to be more about the demanding of royalties (which is presumably covered by contract law) than actual patent litigation itself.
From a legal perspecitve, the difference is largely irrelevant. And in answer to most tortured analogies in reponse; yes - potentially; it depends on knowledge and intent.
But not Texas, Arizona or California. Deciding not to implement something there because it isn't suitable for a place on the otherside of the contry wouldn't make much sense.
So how about we simply don't use these in areas where we get 3ft dumpings of snow in a single day? Some places have a few days of snow per year.
Why?
Not used it, but CE seems to be a perfectly adequate embedded OS, with some degree of actual support from the developer.
But it would be possible. Lift is proportional to wing area (amongst other things). The Space shuttle is heavy with a small wing. A U2 is light with a large wing.
So what is the assumption for wing area and lift coefficient?
If someone stole an iPad, they'd by charged with theft and Apple would see nothing. They may well sue afterwards but the thief would be perfectly entitled to make any offer and Apple may well accept it rather than waste their resources on something relatively trivial.
What we really need is for the DoJ to get involved and actually press charges for deliberate wrongdoing, and for the court to decide the punishment.
There are dozens of little improvements. Better special effects generally, better compositing, losing the blur under the landspeeder. Similarly with the others, the troublesome changes are minor. I'd love to see an almost special edition.
It's a long time since I used a minicab. I'm not sure how the billing works (or that much abut Uber). Are they fundamentally different? It seems that they just offer a price per mile agreed upfront. Does it connect with unlicenced freelancers or actual minicab drivers?
They don't. The whole story was completely misrepresented by a hysterical media. The lesson was simply to teach adjectives and illustrate that you can have a black sheep, a happy sheep a pink sheep or even a rainbow sheep.
Actually you can. They're just not allowed to charge you for it.
Yes, but in Slashdot land, it's still 1997.
All we need is for Tesla to start accepting Bitcoins and Slashdot will implode. Or gain sentience. Or something.
It does depend on who you are. Let's look ay a simple situation. Channel X and Channel Y.
Person A is willing to pay $5 for X and $10 for Y. Person B is willing to pay $10 for X and $5 for Y. Person C is willing to pay $10 for each.
Charge $10 per channel. A buys Y, B buys X C buys X and Y. Total income for provider: $40.
Charge $5 per channel. All buy A and B. Total income for provider: $30.
Charge $15 for the package, All buy A and B. Total income for provider: $45.
So charging a package is better for the provider (and it virtually always is). If they are forced to provide a la carte, they would choose to charge $10 (in this situation). But everybody loses something of value. Person A loses channel X, B loses channel Y, and C loses the $5 extra he's paying. Of course, this is just one situation.
But if you're willing to spend what you currently spend to get the channels you watch, you'll be willing to pay more for the channels you do want and nothing for those you don't.
You've already demonstrated that the subset of channels you watch is worth the monthly subscription to them. Why would they charge less? It costs them pretty much the same to provide a channel to 1 person as 100 people.
It's a good question.
I don't think there's anything wrong with limiting the choices available to the car and simply not going off the road at all for any reason (even to save the driver). We make compromises for practicality over safety all the time. The extremely rare event that going off the road will save a life simply isn't worth considering.
A driver is obligated to try to avoid harming other people, but best effort is seen as good enough. 0% failure is an impossible goal, but if we aim for considerably higher success in accident avoidance than an unimpaired experienced driver, we should be more than satisfied.
Fair enough. The point is that not everyone agrees.
You present copyright as a moral system. I see it as a practical system.
Your argument is that 2, 3 and 4 are unfair. They are, but I can avoid it quite simply, by not making my book availalbe (or by not even writing it). If I have protection then I can quite happily make my book available. It also makes it afforable to create.
Just an aside. I agree that a 14 year renewal would be fine. Most of the material published in 2000 is out of print and very difficult to obtain, so any argument about losses by the media cartels should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Yes. You're right. Should have thought about that first sentence a bit better.
The reason the main parties are so similar is because that's what people want. Both sides are targeting the mainstream so they meet at a sort of equilibrium point that closely represents the strongest tactical position.
It's not in itself a problem. Ideally this would mean that both parties have chosen a centrist position largely representative of the majority. What is a problem is that this doesn't happen because this isn't the strongest position. Money is way too much of a factor, so that means the best position is somewhere between what the people want, and what generates the most revenue.
I do have a certain fondness for a library of physical media, but there are specific issues with streaming.
Streaming services are not standardised. Sure, everything works with netflix, but what if I don't want Netflix or the other handful of services that are supported? Handing a few companies an oligarchy feels like a bad idea.
Movies that are available now may not be available next week.
I need an internet connection. Okay, my situation here is somewhat specialised, but I spend a lot of time not at home. Hotel internet connections are not perfect. I can rip a bunch of DVDs to my hard disk, or a portable media player, and plug that into a television. This even works in other countries.
DVDs have their own issues. I'm under no illusion about that, but streaming isn't an idea replacement for me.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "popular". It's probably has much better penetration than Laserdisc ever did, and that format lasted a couple of decades. Inclusion in the PS3 meant a lot of early sales which no doubt helped.
But just about anyone who might ever want to watch a movie has a DVD player. Blu-ray is only owned by people who watch quite a lot of movies. And in my case I waited until they were a lot cheaper than I did for a DVD player (although lack of multi-region players was also a factor for me).
Yes it is. But OpenGL ES is not OpenGL. There are features in OpenGL ES that aren't in OpenGL, and features that are available in OpenGL that aren't in OpenGL ES. Similarly the OpenGL ES shader language doesn't support everything that OpenGL ES does.